MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119993723 · doi:10.7759/cureus.12587

Squamous Cell Proliferation as a Reactive Mechanism to Laryngeal Cryptococcus Infection: A Case Report

2021· article· en· W3119993723 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Patrick Mallany, Nikolina Curcin, Sergio Borgia, Greg Belchetz

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Infections and Studies
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptococcus neoformansMedicineMalignancyDimorphic fungusObligateCryptococcosisHead and neckCryptococcusMicrobiologyImmunologyPathologyBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryptococcus neoformans (C. neoformans) is a ubiquitous encapsulated, obligate anaerobe, a dimorphic fungus that can be pathogenic in humans. C. neoformans infections arise primarily in immunocompromised individuals, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, as well as those who use inhaled corticosteroids regularly. Due to the wide variety of clinical findings associated with C. neoformans, infection within the head and neck is occasionally misdiagnosed as malignancy due to its protean manifestation. In this report, we describe the case of a C. neoformans infection resulting in an initial misdiagnosis due to an overlying laryngeal squamous cell proliferation mimicking laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This case is intended to provide further evidence for inhaled corticosteroid use predisposing patients to fungal infections, as well as to provide insight into the possible mechanism resulting in the initial diagnosis of malignancy. A review of recent literature is also discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicFungal Infections and StudiesFrench-language works237,207