MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171787053 · doi:10.1177/26334941211016412

A rational diagnostic approach to the “phantom hCG” and other clinical scenarios in which a patient is thought to be pregnant but is not

2021· review· en· W3171787053 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwafunmilayo Oyatogun, Mandeep Sandhu, Stephanie Barata-Kirby, Erin Tuller, Danny J. Schust

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMedical physicsMedicineObstetricsIntensive care medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scenario in which a patient tests positive for human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in the absence of pregnancy can pose a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians. The term "phantom hCG" refers to persistently positive hCG levels on diagnostic testing in a nonpregnant patient and such results often lead to a false diagnosis of malignancy and subsequent inappropriate treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy. There remains a need for a consistent and rational diagnostic approach to the "phantom hCG." This article aims to review the different etiologies of positive serum hCG testing in nonpregnant subjects and concludes with a practical, stepwise diagnostic approach to assist clinicians encountering this clinical dilemma.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in Reproductive HealthSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207