MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792267242 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.049

A48 DUODENAL ADENOCARCINOMA: A CASE REPORT

2018· article· en· W2792267242 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne Manishen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuodenal bulbMelenaDuodenal cancerDuodenumEsophagogastroduodenoscopyPylorusGastroenterologyEpigastric painColonoscopyInternal medicineAdenocarcinomaEndoscopySurgeryGeneral surgeryVomitingCancerStomachColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary adenocarcinoma of the duodenum is implicated in less than 0.5% of all gastrointestinal cancers. Although rare, benign looking duodenal ulcers at time of endoscopy may represent more sinister pathology, particularly in the absence of H. pylori or NSAID use. We report a case of an elderly man with a benign appearing duodenal ulcer at endoscopy who ultimately developed metastatic carcinoma from a primary adenocarcinoma of the duodenum. Case report A 72 year old male presented for a routine screening colonoscopy. At time of endoscopy, the patient gave a history of vague epigastric discomfort and melena stools over the past two days. He denied ASA or non-steroidal drug use and was a non-smoker. A gastroscopy and colonoscopy were pursued. Upon examination of the duodenal bulb, a small, benign appearing ulcer was noted on the anterior wall with no active bleeding. Antral biopsies for H.pylori were negative. No intestinal metaplasia was seen. He was prescribed proton pump inhibitor and instructed to seek follow up care with his family doctor. Approximately 8 months later, the patient began experiencing epigastric pain, nausea, early satiety and weight loss. He presented to the emergency room 11 months after the original endoscopy. A CT scan of the abdomen showed multiple hepatic metastases and lymphadenopathy at the porta-hepatis. A repeat gastroscopy revealed an ulcerated, stenotic mass at the pylorus, extending from the duodenal bulb. Biopsies of the pylorus revealed invasive adenocarcinoma, intestinal type. The patient was subsequently referred for palliative care. This case highlights that not all duodenal ulcers are benign. It may be worthwhile to ensure patients follow up with their endoscopist should they develop a recurrence of symptoms, at which time biopsy of the actual ulcer, if not healed, could be performed. None

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207