MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153906029 · doi:10.5376/ijccr.2013.03.0010

Adrenal Inclusion in Testicular about Two Cases

2013· article· en· W2153906029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soumeya Fedala, Mahdi Haddam, F. Chentli, N. Djenane, Rebiha Baba Ahmed, Mahmoud Si Ahmed, Radhia Si Youcef

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Case Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)MedicinePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adrenal enzyme deficiency leads pseudopuberty in later diagnosis or in the absence of treatment. The existence of testicular enlargement in boys can be related to adrenal inclusion. We report two observations about this pathology: A boy of 10 years old with 11β hydroxylase and another patients of 6 years old with 21 hydroxylase deficiency. The reason of consultation was the development of the penis and pubic hair with a testicular enlargement. Hormonal balance was in favor of early pseudo puberty. Testicular ultrasonography objectified increased volume and testicular hypoechoic nodules. Tumor markers (βHCG, ACE) were negative. Replacement and suppressive therapy by glucocorticoids is undertaken. The evolution was marked by regression of secondary sexual characteristics, reduced testicular size, increased its echogenecity and loss of nodules. During a reevaluation ten years later, a large heterogeneous testicular nodule is found in one patient. Tumor markers were elevated. Orchidopexy is decided. Histological study was in favor of bilateral Leydig tumor. The intratesticular adrenal inclusion is rare. It is the result of a cortical defect with a delay in diagnosis. Reduction of testicular volume after glucocorticoid therapy is a good predictor of disease control. However, a long term of follow up is necessary because a possibility of tumor degeneration.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical Case ReportsSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207