MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144732619 · doi:10.5430/jst.v3n5p46

Ruptured hepatoblastoma: A case report and literature review

2013· article· en· W2144732619 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Saettini, Valentino Conter, Liviana Da Dalt, Giorgio Perilongo, Daisuke Hasegawa, Eugenia Giraldi, Laura Cavalleri, Carlo Foglia, Lorenzo D’Antiga, Massimo Provenzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatoblastomaMedicineChildhood cancerChemotherapyPediatricsClinical significanceIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spontaneous rupture of hepatoblastoma in childhood is a rare life-threatening event. Despite never being firmly documented this event is considered to play a negative impact on long term survival. Herewith the clinical history of a 6-month-old child with a very large mass and intratumoral bleeding at the diagnosis, who suffered of spontaneous tumor rupture after two cycles of pre-operative chemotherapy and ultimately died of tumor recurrence despite appropriate treatment, is reported. In addition to this case the pertinent literature regarding the prognostic implication of tumor rupture in childhood hepatoblastoma (at the time of diagnosis or during treatment) is reviewed. This report is meant to focus the problem of the clinical and prognostic relevance of tumor rupture and to stimulate appropriate large scale studies aimed to investigate the prognostic value of this event, and to identify the clinical tumor characteristics which may predict its occurrence.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207