MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587066300 · doi:10.1002/dc.23676

Fine‐needle aspiration findings of <scp>X</scp>p11 translocation renal cell carcinoma metastatic to a hilar lymph node

2017· article· en· W2587066300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reima El Naili, Marlo Nicolas, Amanda Gorena, Maria Luisa Policarpio‐Nicolas

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Cytopathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTFE3Renal cell carcinomaMedicinePathologyNephrectomyLymph nodeClear cellFine-needle aspirationImmunohistochemistryEosinophilicChromosomal translocationKidneyBiopsyBiologyInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a specific type of renal cell carcinoma recently placed under the "MiT family translocation RCC" at the last 2013 ISUP Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia. This tumor contains variable proportions of clear cells and could easily mimic papillary RCC, clear cell type, and clear cell papillary RCC. Given the small number of published cytologic findings of this tumor, it could easily present as a diagnostic pitfall. We describe a case of a 23-year-old man with a history of prior nephrectomy who presented with multiple mediastinal lymphadenopathies on imaging surveillance follow-up. Fine-needle aspiration of the lymph node showed tumor cells with voluminous clear to eosinophilic cytoplasm, well-defined cell borders and hyperchromatic nuclei arranged in papillary architecture. Review of the prior nephrectomy specimen showed papillary cores surrounded by cells with voluminous clear to finely granular eosinophilic cytoplasm and distinct cell borders. Immunohistochemical stains performed on the nephrectomy specimen showed tumor positivity for CD10, E-cadherin, a-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, and TFE3 supporting the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma. Although this tumor was initially described predominantly in children, it could also occur in adults, as seen in this case. Familiarity with the cytologic findings of this tumor, use of immunohistochemical stains, or cytogenetic test to determine the type of gene fusion will be extremely useful in arriving at the correct diagnosis. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2017;45:456-462. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic CytopathologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207