A Case of A Mesenteric Cyst Mimicking a Biloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mesenteric cysts are a rare entity, with approximately 1,000 cases reported in the literature. Its etiology is unknown but was theorized to be a benign ectopic lymphatic proliferation in the mesentery. Imaging with surgical excision and pathologic microscopic evaluation is needed for diagnosis, but no specific guidelines for its management have been documented. Per most cases in the literature, drainage of mesenteric cysts is suboptimal and associated with increased risk of recurrence and infection, making surgical resection the treatment of choice. With its varying locations and presentations, diagnosis can be tricky especially given the rarity of its occurrence. Differential diagnosis includes pancreatic pseudocyst, hemangioma, choledochal cyst, hydatid cyst, cystic teratoma, etc. We present a 35-year-old woman who came in with worsening right upper quadrant (RUQ) pain due to chronic cholelithiasis and was found to have a large RUQ cystic mass adherent to the gallbladder, suggesting possible biloma or pancreatic pseudocyst; however, tissue analysis was positive for a mesenteric cyst.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".