MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767030492 · doi:10.14740/jcgo.v6i3-4.461

Distant Cutaneous Manifestations of a Primary Gynecologic Malignancy

2017· article· en· W2767030492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexis Light, Erin E. Higgins, Faye F. Gao, Stephanie L. Wethington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUterine cancerMalignancyBiopsyMetastasisPresentation (obstetrics)Differential diagnosisSerous fluidCarcinomaEndometrial cancerEndometrial biopsyOvarian cancerCancerGynecologyPathologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uterine cancer is the most common gynecologic cancer in the United States. While most cases are diagnosed early and recurrence is rare with adequate treatment, late stage disease has a much worse prognosis, with 5-year survival rates of 25-45%. We report the presentation of recurrent uterine serous carcinoma with metastasis to the skin. An 80-year-old postmenopausal female with a history of endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma was diagnosed with recurrent metastatic disease 3 years after her initial presentation. During hospital admission, she was noted to have clusters of rubbery cutaneous nodules with an erythematous vesicular appearance on the left breast. Biopsy of the lesions showed metastatic serous adenocarcinoma consistent with gynecologic origin. Cutaneous metastasis is a rare finding in uterine cancer. This case highlights the importance of maintaining a wide differential diagnosis and high level of suspicion when evaluating skin lesions in the setting of uterine pathology. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2017;6(3-4):71-74 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo461w

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207