MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113400586 · doi:10.14740/gr1336

A Case of A Mesenteric Cyst Mimicking a Biloma

2020· article· en· W3113400586 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Fekredeen Ayas, Saif Affas, Gilles Jadd Hoilat, Ihab Kassab, Mohammed Barawi

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations and Hemangiomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystMesenteryDifferential diagnosisPancreatic pseudocystEtiologyRadiologyCholedochal cystsGallbladderAbdominal painSurgeryPathologyPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicVascular Malformations and HemangiomasFrench-language works237,207