MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163601420 · doi:10.21037/acr-20-160

Granular cell tumor of the abdominal wall, a case report and review of literature

2021· article· en· W3163601420 on OpenAlexaff
Sarwat Rehan, Hamza Paracha, Rehan Masood, Robby Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAME Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTumors and Oncological Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranular cell tumorMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Granular cell tumors (GCTs) on the abdominal wall are rare and present as a painless superficial abdominal mass. We report the case of a 73-year-old female, who presented to the family medicine practice with a painless subcutaneous anterior abdominal wall mass. Ultrasound showed a 0.9×0.5×1.3 cm3 hyperechoic solid lesion with distal shadowing within the subcutaneous tissue of the anterior abdominal wall. The X-ray did not show any calcification within the subcutaneous tissue which ruled out metastatic calcified lesions. The patient was referred to general surgery for further evaluation. A previous computed tomography (CT) revealed a nonspecific 12 mm lesion involving the skin and subcutaneous fat in the right upper quadrant of the anterior abdominal wall. The lesion was excised under local anesthesia and sent for histopathological analysis. CD68 highlighted the multitude of macrophages microscopically. Histopathology demonstrated CKAE1/AE3 was negative for any epithelial components and S100 was diffusely positive. A final diagnosis of GCT was made. On follow-up, the patient underwent excision of the scar tissue with no evidence of atypia or GCT. This case is unique due to its benign presentation and limited reported literature. Further evaluation of a painless subcutaneous lesion is imperative to rule out rare conditions and the possibility of recurrent or metastatic malignancy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAME Case ReportsSame topicTumors and Oncological CasesFrench-language works237,207