MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208724684 · doi:10.14740/jcs284w

Acute Appendicitis Due to Metastasis of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report

2015· article· en· W2208724684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imad El Moussaoui, Romain Diamand, Manke Dika, Augustin Limbga, Abdelilah Mehdi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastasisAdenocarcinomaAppendixAppendicitisLesionAcute appendicitisProstateRadiologyCarcinomaProstatic adenocarcinomaGeneral surgerySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute appendicitis due to metastasis of prostatic carcinoma is very rare, and only five cases of metastasis of prostatic carcinoma are described in the literature. We report the case of a 73-year-old man with a history of an adenocarcinoma of the prostate with multiple bone metastases. The patient was admitted to the emergency department with symptoms and signs of an acute appendicitis which was confirmed by computed tomography (CT). Laparoscopic surgical exploration was performed, affirming an acute appendicitis with a suspicious lesion in the appendix base. Due to the location of the lesion, an ileocecectomy was performed. Histopathological and immunohistochemical examinations of the specimen showed an extrinsic infiltration of the appendix by adenocarcinoma metastasis expressing the prostate-specific antigen (PSA). These results confirmed an acute appendicitis caused by metastasis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Curr Surg. 2015;5(4):204-206 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs284w

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)0.004
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
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Current SurgerySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207