MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081138555 · doi:10.14740/jcs415

A Case of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei With a Synchronous Inguinal Hernia

2020· article· en· W3081138555 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Yee, Tyrell Daniel, Ahmad Hlayhel, Lindsey Foran, Jamshed Zuberi, Mark Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePseudomyxoma peritoneiInguinal herniaExploratory laparotomyAppendixSurgeryInguinal canalGeneral surgeryAbdomenPelvisAbdominal cavityHernia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare disease that most commonly results from the rupture of an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. It is characterized by mucinous ascites that disseminates throughout the abdomen and pelvis, and at times to the inguinal canal, in which some patients may complain of inguinal hernia as the initial complaint. The incidence of PMP with concomitant inguinal hernia is reported to be 7.3-9.6% in the current literature. We report a 70-year-old Hispanic male who initially presented with signs of a right inguinal hernia, and on computed tomography (CT) scan, was subsequently found to have a large collection of right lower quadrant cysts extending into the right inguinal canal and hemiscrotum. Patient underwent exploratory laparotomy and was found to have a large right retroperitoneal mass with PMP with mucinous contents herniating through the right inguinal canal encased within peritoneal sac and had surgical debulking of peritoneal cavity and right hemiscrotum. The patient was discharged 9 days later. PMP that presents with an inguinal hernia is a special entity that warrants a discussion on the optimal management of inguinal involvement of a mucinous tumor. J Curr Surg. 2020;10(3):49-53 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs415

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Current SurgerySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207