Unorthodox Presentation of Colorectal Cancer With Multiple Fistulas and Multiple Abscesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most lethal cancer in the United States and is the third most common type of cancer. In 2016, 134,490 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the United States. The diagnosis is usually made with screening colonoscopy on asymptomatic patients, while other patients are diagnosed after presenting symptoms such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, changes in bowel movements, and abdominal pain. Also on emergency surgical procedures, a tumor may be found. We present a case of a 50-year-old Hispanic woman, G3P3AO, with a past medical history of hypertension, major depressive disorder and hysterectomy in 2003 without any toxic habits or family history of colon cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. Patient arrived with left lower quadrant pain, fever, and loss of appetite and was treated with IV antibiotics for an acute diverticulitis. Patient had multiple visits to urgency room for fecal material that discharged from the vaginal area and multiple intraabdominal abscesses in addition to obstruction. On imaging studies, patient had rectovaginal fistula and multiple abscesses. The patient’s clinical condition became more complicated with enterocutaneous fistula and enterocolonic fistula 4 months later, suggesting inflammatory bowel disease. Sigmoid adenocarcinoma was diagnosed on the second colonoscopy. The clinical presentations of this patient with multiple abscesses and fistulas are commonly found on inflammatory bowel disease and can also be found in complicated intraabdominal infections. Rectovaginal fistulas which were the first fistula more commonly are caused by obstetric complications. Other common causes associated include surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, radiation therapy, and malignancy. These findings can mask the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and make the diagnosis challenging. J Med Cases. 2018;9(1):29-33 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2959w
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".