MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Not Captured on Camera: A Case of Appendiceal Cancer and Ascites

2018· article· en· W2921372716 on OpenAlexaff
Navroop Nagra, Omar Shahbaz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsPeace Arch Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAscitesAppendixColonoscopyCirrhosisRadiologyLaparotomyParacentesisBiopsyMalignancyCancerGastroenterologyInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Appendiceal cancers are rare GI malignancies with less than 1000 Americans diagnosed each year (total of 0.5% of GI cancers). About half of cases are discovered while undergoing surgery for acute appendicitis. Unfortunately, even screening colonoscopies can sometimes miss these cancers. In patients with concomitant ascites, the serum ascites albumin gradient (SAAG) and cytology can play a crucial complementary role in uncovering this malignancy. Case description: A 60 year old female with recently diagnostic decompensated “idiopathic” cirrhosis with ascites for 2 months presented to the ER with nausea and early satiety for 1 month. CT abdomen with IV and oral contrast and Liver Ultrasound was concerning for cirrhosis, with lab workup unrevealing of a discrete etiology at that time. Liver biopsy showed early cirrhosis .The SAAG was less than 1.1.On Transjugular Liver Biopsy HVPG was 14mmHg consistent with portal hypertension. A repeat CT with contrast was performed concerning for peritoneal carcinomatosis,appendix was not clearly visualised. Ascitic fluid Cytology analysis showed “adenocarcinoma with primary colorectal”. Of note, the patient had a colonoscopy by her primary gastroenterologist less than 1 year ago which was normal but the appendix was not clearly visualized or photodocumented. A repeat colonoscopy was performed and again the appendix was poorly visualized. Surgical oncology was consulted who recommended open laparotomy and debulking surgery with peritonectomy. The appendix was felt to be “firm to the touch” in the retrocecum and resected. Final pathology demonstrated poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of appendix measuring 5.1cm with lymphovascular invasion. The patient was subsequently started on chemotherapy. Discussion This case underscores the subtle clinical features of appendiceal cancer as well as the importance of clear photodocumentation of the appendix during colonoscopy. In the case of poor appendiceal visualization, CT imaging such as CT colonography may have diagnosed the lesion. Further, in patients with ascites the SAAG and cytology analysis can be helpful in picking up this rare GI diagnosis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
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 designObservational
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 venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207