A Case of Pituitary Germinoma Misdiagnosed as Lymphocytic Hypophysitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pituitary germinomas are difficult to be differentiated from lymphocytic hypophysitis due to similar clinical, radiological and even histological findings. However, it is of great importance to make the distinction between them because of different therapeutic approaches of the two diseases. We report a case of neurohypophysial germinoma who initially was misdiagnosed as lymphocytic hypophysitis. The patient was a 26-year-old man who first presented with central diabetes insipidus and subsequent pan-hypopituitarism. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pituitary which first had shown mild pituitary enlargement, revealed a pituitary mass of unusual feature after 1 year. Pathological diagnosis of the lesion, biopsied through trans-sphenoidal route, was lymphocytic hypophysitis. Corticosteroid was initiated for him. Despite, intensive treatment clinical symptoms worsened and the patient developed visual field defect. Follow-up MRI revealed enlargement of the pituitary mass with suprasellar extension and involvement of optic chiasm. Surgical resection of the mass was performed, and the second histological examination confirmed the diagnosis of germinoma. Subsequently, the patient underwent radiotherapy, and complete remission was achieved; however, pan-hypopituitarism persisted. In conclusion, the possibility of neurohypophyseal germinoma should be considered in patients with the diagnosis of lymphocytic hypophysitis who do not respond to corticosteroid therapy. J Endocrinol Metab. 2018;8(5):113-118 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem530w
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".