MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794262068 · doi:10.14740/wjon1073w

A Rare Case of Colonic Metastases From Tonsillar Carcinoma: Case Report and Review of Literature

2018· article· en· W2794262068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassan Tariq, Muhammad Kamal, Shehriyar Mehershahi, Muhammad Saad, Sara Azam, Kishore Kumar, Masooma Niazi, Jasbir Makker, Myrta Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastasisCancerColorectal cancerNeck dissectionDissection (medical)OncologyHead and neck cancerIncidence (geometry)LungRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of tonsillar cancer has increased by four times in the United States over the last few decades likely due to recent increase in human papilloma virus (HPV) infections. The stage of the tumor predicts likelihood of metastasis, with advanced stages associated with higher chances of metastasis. The squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the head and neck commonly metastasize to the lung, bone and liver in descending order. Tonsillar cancer rarely involves the small bowel and our review of the literature did not reveal any reported case of metastasis to the colon/large bowel. Our patient had locally metastatic tonsillar cancer, treated with partial pharyngectomy and selective neck dissection but later developed several bone and colonic metastases concurrently, likely secondary to hematogeneous dissemination after a few months of therapy. To the best of our knowledge, large bowel metastasis from head and neck SCC has never been reported in the literature. In these patients presenting with atypical gastrointestinal symptoms, a high index of suspicion should be maintained to determine the extent of metastasis and identify other metastatic sites.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207