Fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of an intra‐abdominal inflammatory mass secondary to a penetrating duodenal ulcer mimicking neoplasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptic ulcers complicated by penetration into the surrounding tissue and presenting as an intra-abdominal mass simulating a malignancy are uncommon. We report on a case of a 56-yr-old physician with a 40-yr history of peptic disease. Due to recent and transitory right flank pain, an ultrasound then a computed tomography scan demonstrated a 4-cm retropancreatic mass. A fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of the mass showed an acute and chronic inflammatory exudate. After a course of medical treatment for peptic ulcer disease and 5 mo after the biopsy, the mass remarkably decreased in size. In view of the clinical and FNAB findings, the lesion likely developed as a result of penetration of the duodenal ulcer into the retropancreatic space. Awareness of this uncommon complication of peptic gastroduodenal ulcer disease is helpful in the diagnosis of this benign lesion. A failure in making a firm diagnosis by considering the aspirate material as nonrepresentative may lead to an unnecessary repeat biopsy or an invasive procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".