MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797748015 · doi:10.1155/2018/3948784

Hepatic Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma Presenting as an Enlarging Vascular Lesion within the Spleen

2018· article· en· W2797748015 on OpenAlexaff
Juliet Emamaullee, Klaudia Nowak, Marla Beach, Julinor Bacani, A. M. James Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Transplantation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Tumors and Angiosarcomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpithelioid hemangioendotheliomaPathologyHemangioendotheliomaLesionLiver transplantationSplenectomySpleenTransplantationImmunohistochemistrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular neoplasm with variable malignant potential that most often presents within the liver. Many patients present with bilobar or extrahepatic disease, and the current treatment paradigm involves liver transplantation, with favorable long term results. Up to 25% of patients are diagnosed incidentally following imaging for other indications, and confirmation of diagnosis requires histologic analysis, as there are no classical imaging features to distinguish hepatic EHE (HEHE) from other solid hepatic lesions. Here we describe a case of microscopic HEHE that was diagnosed following splenectomy for an enlarging vascular tumor within the spleen. Due to the unexpected diagnosis of EHE within the spleen and coexisting but stable appearing liver hemangiomata, a left hepatic lobectomy was performed. Explant histology revealed benign hemangiomata and diffuse, microscopic HEHE. The patient ultimately underwent liver transplantation. HEHE can be a challenging diagnosis, and this case emphasizes that any enlarging vascular lesion, even within the spleen, should prompt a high index of suspicion for HEHE in the setting of known hemangiomata.

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)0.000
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in TransplantationSame topicVascular Tumors and AngiosarcomasFrench-language works237,207