MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156376189 · doi:10.1007/s12328-021-01397-4

Treatment of a giant hepatic echinococcal cyst with percutaneous drainage and in vivo assessment of the protoscolicidal effect of praziquantel

2021· article· en· W3156376189 on OpenAlexaff
Joachim Richter, Andreas K. Lindner, Dominik Geisel, Giovanni Torsello, Gabriela E. Martínez, Caroline Isner, Dirk Schürmann, Frieder Pfäfflin, Arzu Orhun, Tommaso Manciulli, Enrico Brunetti

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic infections in humans and animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlbendazoleMedicinePraziquantelPercutaneousCystSurgeryInterventional radiologyCatheterNeurosurgeryRadiologySchistosomiasisHelminths

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapy choices for cystic echinococcisis (CE) are stage-specific: surgical, minimally invasive, medical or observation without intervention. PAIR (percutaneous aspiration, instillation of a scolicide, and re-aspiration) has been considered the treatment of choice for uncomplicated echinococcal liver cysts. However, PAIR carries the risk of toxic cholangitis or hypernatremia and that the cyst frequently refills with bile after withdrawing the catheter. We treated a patient with a giant CE 1 liver cyst with puncture drainage (PD) under albendazole coverage. Drainage enabled us to monitor the morphology of protoscolices under praziquantel (PZQ) co-medication. Protoscolices degenerated within 5 days of PZQ 50 mg/kg/d. The cyst cavity solidified with no evidence of reactivation or secondary spread. Percutaneous treatments can replace surgery in a significant number or cases with hepatic CE. PD allows to assess microscopically the viability of protoscolices under co-medication with PZQ-albendazole and to avoid the instillation of topical scolicides.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of GastroenterologySame topicParasitic infections in humans and animalsFrench-language works237,207