MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950572245 · doi:10.1186/s12876-019-1001-5

Biliary mucinous cystic neoplasm mimicking a hydatid cyst: a case report and literature review

2019· review· en· W2950572245 on OpenAlexaff
Côme Tholomier, Yifan Wang, Olga Aleynikova, Tsafrir Vanounou, Jean‐Sébastien Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Gastroenterology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatologyCholedochal cystsCystRadiologyMucinous cystadenomaCystic echinococcosisAppendixCystadenomaGeneral surgerySurgeryEchinococcosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biliary mucinous cystic neoplasms are rare cystic lesions of the liver which carry pre-malignant potential. Given the scarcity of reports in the literature, they pose a considerable challenge to clinical management, particularly with regards to accurate pre-operative diagnosis. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 37-year-old Tunisian woman who presented with subacute right upper quadrant pain and a large multi-loculated cystic lesion, most consistent with a hydatid cyst. She underwent an open right hepatectomy, and pathology surprisingly revealed a biliary mucinous cystadenoma. Herein, we review the current literature on biliary mucinous cystic neoplasms, with a particular emphasis on diagnostic investigations, key radiological features and optimal treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: Biliary mucinous cystic neoplasms require a high index of suspicion and should be managed with complete surgical resection, as conservative techniques are associated with high recurrence rates. Considering the potential for malignant transformation, periodical surveillance imaging is recommended in the post-operative period.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
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.

Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GastroenterologySame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207