MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155707018 · doi:10.1016/s1665-2681(19)31374-2

Isolated granulomatous hepatitis-A histopathological surprise mimicking cholangiocarcinoma in ulcerative colitis

2013· article· en· W2155707018 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish Khandelwal, Ujjwal Gorsi, E. Celia Marginean, Demetri Papadatos, Uttam George

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Hepatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary sclerosing cholangitisUlcerative colitisDifferential diagnosisLesionPathologyBiopsyGranulomaLiver function testsGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 63-yr-old woman, known case of ulcerative colitis, was diagnosed with sclerosing cholangitis 2 years back. She was admitted for investigation of abdominal discomfort, fatigue with elevated alkaline phosphatase and deranged liver function test. Imaging studies (computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) demonstrated a normal biliary tree with focal hepatic lesion which was showing features of cholangiocarcinoma. Ultrasound guided biopsy of the lesion surprisingly revealed non caseating granulomata. Granulomatous hepatitis occurs in less than 1 percent of cases of inflammatory bowel disease. A clinical diagnosis of isolated granulomatous hepatitis was established as the lesion remained stable on follow up and no other cause for it was identified on further investigation. Although the differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesion in patients with ulcerative colitis with sclerosing cholangitis is wide, granulomatous hepatitis presenting as focal mass lesion mimicking cholangiocarcinoma has never been described previously.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of HepatologySame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207