MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892155631 · doi:10.5430/css.v4n2p21

Residual cholesteatoma of the mastoid cavity presenting with radiologic signal of a cholesterol granuloma: A case report

2018· article· en· W2892155631 on OpenAlexaff
M. Isabel, Jean Chénard, Margaret Aron

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar and Head Tumors
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholesteatomaMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingTemporal boneGranulomaRadiologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cholesteatoma and cholesterol granuloma can both occur in the temporal bone. Their distinct magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signals are generally used to help differentiate one from the other to plan appropriate treatment, which differs based on the pathology.Case presentation: We present a patient with recent-onset facial paralysis whose mastoid cavity was filled with tissue radiologically resembling cholesterol granuloma but that turned out to be cholesteatoma upon surgical exploration. Complete disease extirpation was thus completed rather than simple marsupialization, the latter of which would have been sufficient in the case of cholesterol granuloma.Discussion: Cholesteatoma, although usually hypointense on T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) MRI, hyperintense on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) MRI and showing diffusion restriction on diffusion-weighted imaging can occasionally present with an atypical MRI signal, for example, one suggestive of cholesterol granuloma.Conclusions: The clinician should keep in mind the possible diagnosis of cholesteatoma despite an atypical MRI signal in the temporal bone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in SurgerySame topicEar and Head TumorsFrench-language works237,207