MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132282119 · doi:10.4021/gr2009.01.1267

Non-invasive Adenocarcinoma of the Vermiform Appendix: Incidence and Report of Four Cases among 512 Appendectomies

2009· article· en· W2132282119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tadashi Terada

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVermiformAppendixMedicineIncidence (geometry)AdenocarcinomaGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancerMathematicsBiologyPaleontologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumors of the vermiform appendix are relatively rare. More than 50% of appendiceal tumors are carcinoid tumors. The author reviewed 512 consecutive pathological specimens of appendectomies in last ten years in our pathology laboratory in search for appendiceal tumors. As the results, 4 cases (incidence: 0.8%) of non-invasive adenocarcinoma were found. No other tumors including carcinoid tumors were recognized. The age of the 4 patients with adenocarcinoma was 48, 39, 84 and 86 years, respectively. Male to female ratio was 3:1. The clinical diagnoses were acute appendicitis in 2 cases and suspected malignancy in 2 cases. The post-operative outcome was good without metastasis, recurrence, and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Pathologically, all the 4 tumors were non-invasive adenocarcinomas: 2 cases were flat type adenocarcinoma, 1 case was papillary adenocarcinoma, and 1 case was mucinous adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemically, expression of p53 protein was observed in all the 4 cases, and Ki-67 labeling ranged from 40% to 90%. The results suggest that incidence of appendiceal adenocarcinoma was 0.8% of all appendectomies, and that non-invasive adenocarcinoma of the appendix shows variable morphologies, and that postoperative clinical outcome of non-invasive appendiceal tumor is good.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207