MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045042050 · doi:10.14740/jmc3532

Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3 in a Woman Without Simultaneous Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasm

2020· article· en· W3045042050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eriko Hoshi-Sakamoto, Hisami Kiseki, Shun‐ichi Ikeda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervixColposcopySquamous intraepithelial lesionCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaLesionGynecologyFornixIntraepithelial neoplasiaVaginaCervical cancerPathologySurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the presence of the uterus, it is rare that vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) alone exists. We described our experience with a case in which VAIN3 was found in the vaginal fornix without lesions in the uterine cervix. She had cervical intraepithelial neoplasm (CIN) 1 several years ago. After that, it disappeared. However, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion persisted cytologically. After hysterectomy was performed, VAIN3 was found in the vaginal fornix. CIN was not found in the cervix. We are apt to suspect endocervical lesions when Papanicolau (Pap) smear shows abnormalities and colposcopy fails to identify columnar epithelium. However, we need to keep in mind that the vaginal fornix may have a lesion. It may be difficult to assess the vaginal fornix in young women because of a large cervix. The presence of VAIN should also be considered when cytological abnormalities persist on Pap smears.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207