MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326402536 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000209

A Sex Cord-stromal Tumor, Specifically a Fibroma, Arising From the Uterine Corpus

2015· article· en· W2326402536 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Sudour‐Bonnange, N. Rocourt, E. Aubry, Cyril Lervat, Olivier Kerdraon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyStromal cellFibromaMedicineContext (archaeology)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 12-yr-old girl presented with lordosis and an intraperitoneal mass that revealed a tumor attached to the uterine fundus. The fallopian tubes and ovaries were spared. The mass was completely excised, and a patch of the uterine fundus and the proximal one third of the fallopian tubes were resected. The lesion was composed of bland spindle cells that were positive for sex cord-stromal markers, with particularly strong staining for inhibin and CD56, as well as patchy staining for calretinin, WT1, and steroidogenic factor 1. Thus, the patient was diagnosed with a sex cord-stromal tumor, specifically a fibroma, arising from the uterine corpus. The pathogenesis of this tumor is unclear. An ovarian origin in the context of adherence or a tumor arising from sex cord-stromal ectopic tissues cannot be excluded, but seem unlikely. The tumor might appear as a particular form of uterine tumor resembling an ovarian sex cord tumor. However, this tumor would differ from the presently described classical form of uterine tumor resembling an ovarian sex cord tumor owing to a pure stromal differentiation instead of a pure sex cord differentiation. Finally, because of the low risk for recurrence, long-term follow-up was prescribed for the patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207