Nonsurgical management of mesenchymal hamartomas of the chest wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mesenchymal hamartomas of the chest wall (MHCW) are extremely rare extrapleural benign tumors. There is increasing utilization of nonoperative management given increased understanding of its benign biological behavior. Methods A review of cases utilizing nonoperative management was completed. We present a case of complete spontaneous resolution of a MHCW managed nonoperatively with radiologic surveillance for five years. Results Most reported cases were single case reports, with a total of 12 cases including our patient. From the reported cases on nonsurgical management eight were unilateral (67%), and four bilateral (33%). Two patients with unilateral involvement had multifocal lesions (29%). The majority of unilateral lesions were on the right side (85%). Three patients (27%) underwent subsequent surgical management after an initial period of conservative management. Two of these had bilateral involvement and the lesion was resected on only one side, while the third patient had unilateral multifocal involvement and underwent surgery for the predominant lesion only. Conclusion Mesenchymal hamartomas of the chest wall are extremely rare extrapleural benign tumors. There is increasing utilization of nonoperative management given increased understanding of its benign biological behavior. We present a case of complete spontaneous resolution of a MHCW managed nonoperatively with radiologic surveillance for five years.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".