MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737225791 · doi:10.1111/his.13324

The histopathological classification, diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mucinous appendiceal neoplasms, appendiceal adenocarcinomas and pseudomyxoma peritonei

2017· review· en· W2737225791 on OpenAlexaff
Norman J. Carr, Frédéric Bibeau, Robert F. Bradley, Peggy Dartigues, Roger M. Feakins, Kim R. Geisinger, Xianyong Gui, Sylvie Isaac, Massimo Milione, Joseph Misdraji, Reetesh K. Pai, Manuel Rodriguez‐Justo, Leslie H. Sobin, Marie‐Louise F. van Velthuysen, Rhonda K. Yantiss

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudomyxoma peritoneiAppendixVermiformMedicineDifferential diagnosisMucinous TumorMucinous cystadenomaAdenocarcinomaPathologyRadiologyGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicineOvaryPancreas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vermiform appendix is the primary site of several distinctive benign and malignant neoplasms. Some can produce the clinical syndrome of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). A consensus on their terminology was reached by an international panel of pathologists and clinicians working under the auspices of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI), and this review discusses the application of the PSOGI classification to routine reporting. We discuss diagnosis and differential diagnosis together with implications for patient management, covering low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, serrated polyps, adenomas and adenocarcinomas. We do not cover goblet cell tumours or neuroendocrine neoplasms in this paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.355
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations303
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207