MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135240841 · doi:10.1093/jscr/rju144

A case series of two glomus tumors of the gastrointestinal tract

2015· article· en· W2135240841 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Bennett, Mai T. Lam, Jason K. Wasserman, David H. Carver, Nav Saloojee, Terence Moyana, Rebecca A. Auer, J.W. Lorimer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Case Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumors and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundGastrointestinal tractGlomus tumorStromal tumorRadiologyPathologicalEndoscopic submucosal dissectionBiopsyPathologyPresentation (obstetrics)GiSTEndoscopyStromal cellInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two recent cases of glomus tumors (GTs) of the gastrointestinal tract presented with symptoms of GI bleeding. GTs, typically benign lesions of mesenchymal origin, are rarely seen in the GI tract, and most commonly involve the distal appendages. This case series discusses the tumor biology, presentation, imaging, endoscopic findings, pathology and management of GTs. While diagnosis of GTs is typically made on final surgical pathology, there are defining characteristics that can separate a GT from a gastrointestinal stromal tumor on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and CT imaging. The classic pathological findings are discussed, and surgical decision-making is reviewed. New developments in the form of EUS-guided biopsy and endoscopic submucosal dissection present new avenues for diagnosis and treatment of submucosal lesions of the GI tract, including GTs. While typically a benign tumor requiring no adjuvant therapy, this study discusses some very rare cases of metastatic GT in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical Case ReportsSame topicSoft tissue tumors and treatmentFrench-language works237,207