MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409854940

Cytomorphologic spectrum of mixed pituitary adenoma-gangliocytomas: a report of two cases.

2010· article· en· W2409854940 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Sy, Lee Cyn Ang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePituitary adenomaAdenomaPathologyGanglionCytologyMixed tumorPituitary tumorsAnatomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mixed pituitary adenoma-gangliocytomas are rare tumors with a broad morphologic spectrum. Smear cytology is a useful tool for recognizing these tumors in an intraoperative setting. CASES: The patients were 45 and 30 years old, and both presented with headache. Intraoperative smears in both cases showed a tumor composed of adenomatous and neuronal elements, in varying proportions. The first case had sheets of monotonous neuroendocrine-type cells with occasional interspersed ganglion cells. The second case, however, had a prominent fibrillary background and was predominantly neurocytic, with a mixture of large ganglion-like cells, intermediate cells, and only rare adenomatous cells. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic features of mixed pituitary adenoma-gangliocytomas can be recognized on intraoperative smear preparations. Smear preparations are often more useful than frozen sections because freezing artifacts may mask one of the two components of the tumor. The proportion of adenomatous and neuronal elements can vary widely from case to case. Careful search for a neuronal component should be made, especially if there is a clinical history of a pituitary adenoma showing incomplete response to hormonal therapy.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207