MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121816454

Borderline serous papillary tumour of the testis: a case report and review of the literature.

2012· article· en· W2121816454 on OpenAlexaff
Amar Ibrahim, Cheng Li, M. Al-Jafari

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsammoma bodyPathologySerous fluidCytokeratinCarcinoembryonic antigenMedicineLymphovascular invasionSerous carcinomaImmunohistochemistryCystadenocarcinomaMetastasisAdenocarcinomaCancerOvarian cancerInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borderline serous tumour of the testis and paratestis is an uncommon entity. We report a case of borderline serous tumour of a 59-year-old male, who presented with a right testicular swelling which was clinically suspicious of carcinoma. Radical orchidectomy was performed and a cystic lesion was identified in the testis. Macroscopically the tumour was composed of a unilocular cyst with excrescences in the inner surface. The histological features were identical to the ovarian counterpart of borderline serous papillary tumour. The excrescences were formed by stratified columnar epithelium, which exhibited mild nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic activity, with a fibrovascular core and scattered psammoma bodies. There was no lymphovascular or stromal invasion. The lesion was surrounded by a dense fibrous wall. On immunohistochemistry, the lining epithelial cells expressed cytokeratin AE1/AE3 but not carcinoembryonic antigen or calretinin. Following the removal of the tumour, the patient was followed up and no recurrence or metastasis has occurred to date. This case highlights the need for clinicians and pathologists to be aware of this rare entity and to develop the best approach for patient management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207