MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016857381 · doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206501

Multiple sclerosing pneumocytomas: a review

2020· review· en· W3016857381 on OpenAlexaff
Prodipto Pal, Runjan Chetty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistogenesisHistopathologyPathologyAsymptomaticDifferential diagnosisMedicineLungLesionRadiologyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sclerosing pneumocytoma (SP) is a rare benign low-grade tumour of the lung, and typically presents as single discrete coin lesions on imaging. Multiple SP is an exceedingly rare entity and thus reported sparingly. We review the literature on multiple SP, their clinical presentations, histopathology, relevant differential diagnoses and molecular histogenesis of this entity. SP has a predilection for East Asian origin females who have never smoked. Patients are either asymptomatic or have symptoms such as cough, haemoptysis that may be persistent, chest pain if involving the pleura and presents as discrete coin lesion on chest X-ray. Histologically, they are papillary, solid, angiomatoid or sclerotic, or combinations of these four basic patterns. Multiple lesions have the same or slightly different histological patterns. They can be distributed in either lung, in any lobe and can even be bilateral. AKT-1 molecular pathways are pivotal in their molecular pathogenesis. In this review, we further propose a classification based on five types of distribution of multiple SP.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.384
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicMedical Imaging and Pathology StudiesFrench-language works237,207