MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2358910181 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.3122

Primary signet ring cell carcinoma of the prostate treated by radical cystoprostatectomy and chemoradiotherapy

2016· article· en· W2358910181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sun Wook Kim, Woohyun Kim, Yong‐Hyun Cho, Taejung Kim, Insuk Woo, Dong Wan Sohn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrologic and reproductive health conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystoprostatectomyProstateSignet ring cell carcinomaSignet ring cellUrologyPathologyAdenocarcinomaInternal medicineProstatectomyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the prostate is very rare. Although SRCC is primarily found in the stomach and colon, it can also be found in the pancreas, breast, thyroid, bladder, and prostate. We recently diagnosed and treated a case of primary SRCC of the prostate. A 56-year-old Korean man was referred to our institution for evaluation of a one-month history of hematuria and recently identified bladder mass. Transurethral resection of the bladder tumour was performed and histological and immunohistochemical evaluation revealed a diagnosis of SRCC with tumour invading into the outer half of the deep muscularis propria. After three weeks, the patient had radical cystoprostatectomy with ileal conduit. Tumour involved both prostate and bladder, but the centre of the tumour was located in the prostate. Duodenoscopy and colon fibroscopy both indicated no evidence of tumour origin in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Overall, this tumour was regarded as primary SRCC of the prostate. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) using leucovorin and fluorouracil was initiated two months later. The patient eventually developed bone and liver metastases and died of hepatopathy.

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)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrologic and reproductive health conditionsFrench-language works237,207