MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002557913 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz049

Signet Ring Early Gastric Cancer: Seize the Opportunity

2019· article· en· W3002557913 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Bechara, Haruhiro Inoue, David Hurlbut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignet ring cellCancerBusinessMedicineInternal medicineAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 66-year-old Caucasian female presented for endoscopy due to nonspecific symptoms of abdominal pain and bloating. During endoscopy, random gastric and duodenal biopsies were taken due to reported ‘patchy erythema’ in the stomach and to rule out celiac, respectively. Surprisingly, a single gastric biopsy specimen demonstrated poorly differentiated signet ring gastric cancer. The procedure was repeated by an endoscopist trained in magnifying endoscopy. Upon entry into the stomach, there was copious bilious material and mucus (Figure 1a). After approximately 10 minutes of vigorous washing with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine, a thorough examination could be achieved (Figure 1b–d). The lesion was detected with white light endoscopy and demonstrated a Paris IIb+IIc morphology. The lesion was characterized with image-enhanced endoscopy and magnification (Figure 1b–f). It demonstrated findings suggestive of undifferentiated early gastric cancer (EGC), namely the stretch sign, corkscrew pattern vessels and intralobular loop pattern 2 (ILL-2) (Figure 1d–f) (1,2). A curative resection was achieved with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) (Figure 2) (3). Early gastric cancer diagnosis. (a) bilious staining upon entry, washing with simethicone and mucolytic (b) lesion with white light (c) optical enhancement (d) magnification, blue arrows indicating demarcation between cancer (left) and normal mucosa (right) (e) stretch sign (red circle) due to infiltration by signet cells f) corkscrew pattern vessels (green arrows). Early gastric cancer resection and pathology. (a–c) Marking and ESD of the lesion; (d) signet cell carcinoma; tumour cells infiltrate superficial lamina propria expanding inter-pit distance (black arrows), correlates with stretch sign (100× magnification) (e) normal inter-pit spacing of adjacent normal gastric mucosa (100× magnification) (f) signet ring carcinoma; tumour cells have cytoplasmic mucin vacuole and eccentrically displaced nucleus (200× magnification) (g) cytokeratin immunohistochemistry (400× magnification). A misconception by Western endoscopists is that flat EGC do not occur in the western population. Although the incidence of gastric cancer in the west is relatively low, EGC do occur and can be missed (4). With every endoscopic exam, the opportunity to detect and potentially cure EGCs should be seized.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207