MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038237035 · doi:10.34172/icnj.2020.17

Co-Morbidity of Pituitary Adenoma and Frontal Convexity Meningioma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

2020· article· en· W3038237035 on OpenAlexaff
Dinh Thi Phuong Hoai, Đặng Thị Ngọc, Van Tri Truong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Clinical Neuroscience Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlactinomaMedicinePituitary adenomaMeningiomaBromocriptineGalactorrheaMagnetic resonance imagingAmenorrheaPresentation (obstetrics)AdenomaPituitary tumorsPituitary neoplasmRadiologyProlactinInternal medicinePituitary gland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instruction: The current study reports a woman with pituitary adenoma and frontal convexity meningioma that was detected accidentally. To the best of our knowledge, this case is considered as a rare clinical scenario. Case Presentation: A 37 years old woman suffering from amenorrhea and galactorrhea had her detail investigation showed hyperprolactinemia. The patient was diagnosed with a prolactinoma, and a frontal convexity meningioma was discovered on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The prolactinoma controlled with Bromocriptine therapy, while the meningioma monitored through medical observation. After two months of pharmaceutical medication, her symptoms improved with the decrease in serum prolactin. Conclusion: Thanks to sophisticated MRI techniques, meningioma and prolactinoma were incidentally detected. It should be noted that co-morbidity of prolactinoma and meningioma is very rare. The mechanism of the association between these two familiar types of intracranial tumors has not yet been clarified, which indicates the need for further studies to offer possible targeted treatment for patients.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Clinical Neuroscience JournalSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207