Gangliocytic Paraganglioma of the Duodenum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 54-year-old woman was examined following a positive fecal occult blood test performed within the screening program for colorectal cancer. The patient had no symptoms, no previous surgeries and her history was unremarkable. Physical examination and basic laboratory tests, including a blood count, were normal. A coloscopy was performed with a finding of a single polyp 5 mm in size in the sigmoid colon. The polyp was removed endoscopically and the histological examination revealed an adenoma. Subsequently, gastroduodenoscopy was performed and revealed a duodenal lesion very near the ampulla (Figure 1). The lesion was 18 mm in diameter with ulceration at the apex. No bleeding was visible. A biopsy sample was taken from the ulceration. No malignant structures were found. Endosonography was then performed and showed the homogeneous structure of the lesion originating from the submucous layer of duodenum. No lymphadenopathy was found (Figure 2). Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a mass in the second portion of the duodenum with no significant lymphadenopathy and no distant metastases. Figure 1) Gastroduodenoscopy showing a mass in the duodenum Figure 2) Endosonography showing homogenous lesion 15 mm in diameter, it does not infiltrate muscularis propria. There is no lymphadenopathy The diagnosis was not known before the treatment, but the lesions had the hallmark characteristics of a gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Endoscopic treatment of the lesion was considered but was not possible due to its location; thus, surgical resection was pursued. The abdominal cavity was approached through a right subcostal incision. A duodenotomy in the D2 was performed along with extirpation of the lesion. No complications occurred. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 11. A final histological examination showed findings typical of gangliocytic paraganglioma of the duodenum (Figure 3); the resection line was free of the tumour. Figure 3) Histological examination of the surgical specimen showing an irregular composition of spindle cells typical of gangliocytic paraganglioma. Hematoxylin-eosin stain, original magnification ×40 The patient is currently being followed-up at our department and is complaint free, showing no signs of recurrence of the disease two-and-a-half years after the surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".