MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139134509

Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma-A Retrospective study.

2021· article· en· W3139134509 on OpenAlexaff
Deepthi Beena, Jayasree Kattoor, Anitha Mathews, Sindhu P. Nair, M Venugopal, T. Priyakumari, N Geetha

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesenchymal chondrosarcomaMedicineChondrosarcomaRadiological weaponPresentation (obstetrics)Retrospective cohort studyBiopsyPopulationPathologicalPelvisRadiologyMedical recordPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma is a rare high grade malignant neoplasm that accounts for 3-10% of all chondrosarcomas. Histopathologically, it shows biphasic population composed of small round to ovoid with occasional spindle cells and islands of well differentiated cartilage. The study aimed at retrospectively analysing the clinical, pathological, radiological features of these cases in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptional study. All the cases of mesenchymal chondrosarcomas were retrieved from our archives of pathology over a period of 10 years .The demographic details including the age, clinical presentation including skeletal/extraskeletal along with radiology were noted for all these cases. The treatment details along with the follow up of the patients were archived from the medical records. RESULTS: A total of 13 cases of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma were retrieved for our study. The mean age of presentation was 33 years with a slight male predilection. Extra skeletal soft tissue origin was noted in 3 of our cases (3/13), one case in forearm, another in pelvis. The third case was intracranial origin which presented as a dural based parieto-occipital mass and rest all had bony origin .The radiological and clinical correlation was done for all these cases. CONCLUSION: Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma presents multiple diagnostic challenges, most common include inadequate biopsy samples which may result in errors in diagnosis, namely with small blue round cell tumours .A better understanding of this entity may help the pathologists in conferring an accurate diagnosis to the clinicians.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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 venuePubMedSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207