MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766453214 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000006927

An atypical lipomatous tumor mimicking a giant fibrovascular polyp of the hypopharynx

2017· article· en· W2766453214 on OpenAlexaff
Khrystyna Ioanidis, Stephanie Danielle MacNeil, Keng Yeow Tay, Bret Wehrli

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaRadiologyPathologicalDifferential diagnosisMedical diagnosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Giant fibrovascular polyps (GFVPs) found in the hypopharynx are exceedingly rare. These are benign tumors which are identified by CT or MRI and usually treated based on symptoms. Even more rarely, pathology may identify one of these masses as an atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT). This paper will present a case of an ALT of the hypopharynx that was originally classified as a GFVP, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between them and the importance of making the correct diagnosis. PATIENT CONCERNS: An 84-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a 6-month history of a pedunculated hypopharyngeal growth, dysphagia, and intermittent dyspnea. DIAGNOSES: The mass was characterized as a GFVP by barium swallow and MRI. INTERVENTIONS: The hypopharyngeal mass was resected for obstructive symptoms and to confirm the diagnosis. Final pathology found the mass to be more consistent with an atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT). OUTCOMES: The patient's dysphagia and dyspnea resolved. He was free of recurrence at 22 months postoperative. LESSONS: Both GFVPs and ALTs are very rarely found in the hypopharynx but can be easily misclassified as one another. Imaging is useful to initially characterize the mass, but to definitively differentiate between them, pathological analysis is necessary. Although they are rare, it is important to consider both possibilities on the differential for hypopharyngeal masses. Further, accurate analysis is essential to distinguish between them because their definitive management and follow-up is different.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207