MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317647344 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100002250

Brain Metastasis from Prostate Small Cell Carcinoma: Not to be Neglected

2002· article· en· W2317647344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Corrie E. Erasmus, W. I. M. Verhagen, Carla Wauters, Erik J. van Lindert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstateBrain metastasisPathologyCarcinomaAdenocarcinomaMetastasisSmall-cell carcinomaThalamusOncologyInternal medicineRadiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic brain metastases from prostatic carcinoma are rare (0.05% to 0.5%). CASE REPORT: A 70-year-old man presented with a homonymous hemianopsia due to brain metastatic prostatic carcinoma shortly before becoming symptomatic of prostatic disease. CT and MRI of the brain showed a tumour deep in the right hemisphere near the thalamus and involving the optic radiation. RESULTS: Routine haematological and biochemical tests were normal. The prostate specific antigen level was low on two separate occasions. The prostatic and brain tumours showed identical appearances, namely of a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). CONCLUSION: A literature review suggests that small cell carcinoma of the prostate is more likely to spread to the brain compared to adenocarcinoma and that brain metastases indicate a poor prognosis. The prostate gland should be remembered as a possible cause of brain metastases and that a normal serum prostate specific antigen does not exclude this diagnosis.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207