MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332147668 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100007393

Salivary Gland-Like Tumor of the Sella

2007· letter· en· W2332147668 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Wouter van Furth, Harley S. Smyth, Éva Horváth, Kálmán Kovács, Fateme Salehi, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniopharyngiomaPituitary glandPituitary tumorsSella turcicaPathologyPituitary adenomaPituitary neoplasmMedicineMetastasisCystAdenomaAnatomyRadiologyCancerInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumors arising in the sellar region are predominantly benign, non-invasive pituitary adenomas. Invasive pituitary adenomas (approximately 35 % of the pituitary adenomas) and pituitary carcinomas (0.1 – 0.5 %) arise from the same cells in the pituitary gland as the benign tumors, but have different pathology and biological behavior. A wide variety of nonadenomatous lesions involve the sellar region. These include tumors that arise specifically from sellar and suprasellar structures, as well as those that are also found elsewhere in the CNS (e.g. meningioma, glioma, metastasis, etc.). Typical nonadenomatous tumors that originate in the sellar region are craniopharyngioma and Rathke’s cleft cyst. The purpose of this paper is to describe another nonadenomatous tumor specific to the sellar region, a salivary gland-like tumor, and review the literature on this subject. This case report will also illustrate the management decisions regarding a patient with multiple medical issues and an aggressive sellar tumor.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207