MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120276463 · doi:10.1016/j.aace.2020.11.038

KIT Mutation in Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in a Patient With Familial Paraganglioma Syndrome Type 4

2021· article· en· W3120276463 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn L. Houlden, Cassandra Hawco

Bibliographic record

VenueAACE Clinical Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSDHBParagangliomaGiSTMedicineGermline mutationStromal tumorGastrectomyPathologyGastroenterologyInternal medicineRadiologyMutationStromal cellCancerBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Familial paraganglioma syndrome type 4 is associated with mutations in the succinate dehydrogenase complex subunit B (SDHB) gene. We report the case of a patient with familial paraganglioma syndrome type 4 with the mutation c.600G>T; p.Trp200Cys who developed a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a KIT mutation. METHODS: Clinical, radiographic, and genetic data have been presented. RESULTS: A 40-year-old man with familial paraganglioma syndrome type 4 and recurrent paraganglioma presented with epigastric pain. He had undergone resection of a paraganglioma superior to the right adrenal gland at 19 years of age, resection of two para-aortic paragangliomas at 39 years, and resection of a paraganglioma in the interatrial septum at 40 years. Computed tomography scan showed a 3.2 × 3.8-cm gastric body intraluminal polypoid mass. A partial gastrectomy was performed, which revealed a GIST with a KIT mutation (NM_000222.2[KIT]:c.2466T>A[p.Asn822Lys]). CONCLUSION: This case provides further evidence that mutations in SDHB and KIT are not mutually exclusive with GISTs. It also identifies the need for endoscopic evaluation for GIST in patients with familial paraganglioma syndrome type 4 with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAACE Clinical Case ReportsSame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207