MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081386957 · doi:10.14740/jnr.v0i0.620

Brain Abscess in a Patient With Radiotherapy-Treated Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Misdiagnosis Case Report and Review of the Literature

2020· article· en· W3081386957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Macko, Sophia Ahmed, Ali Seifi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrain abscessCraniotomyAdenoid cystic carcinomaHeadachesLesionSurgeryAbscessRadiologyCarcinomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain abscesses are a relatively rare entity with an estimated incidence of 0.3 to 1.3 per 100,000 people per year. Brain abscesses arise from direct contiguous spread, hematogenous spread, neurosurgical procedures, open traumatic brain injuries, and cryptogenic sources. Early identification is pivotal, as delayed diagnosis and treatment lead to a very poor prognosis. Our case illustrates an elderly gentleman with a history of adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the oropharyngeal palate who presented to an outside hospital with severe headaches and was found to have a questionable metastatic lesion to his left temporal region. He was discharged with a course of steroids. Weeks later his headaches persisted, mentation further declined and repeat imaging revealed the same abnormal lesion. He subsequently underwent a craniotomy and was found to have a significant temporal abscess and empyema, which were evacuated. Post-operatively his course was complicated by status epilepticus requiring intubation and he was ultimately placed on hospice care. Our case illustrates the importance of early recognition and intervention for suspicious lesions, particularly when predisposing risk factors exist. J Neurol Res. 2020;10(5):199-202 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr620

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207