MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206037028 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2021.367

P.089 A report of a patient presenting with orbital apex syndrome secondary to NK cell lymphoma (nasal type)

2021· article· en· W4206037028 on OpenAlexaffvenue
IU Shahab, Haji Chalchal, A Kirk, Kristen Moulton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSaskatoon Medical Imaging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaMalignancyBiopsyEtiologyWork-upRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Orbital apex syndrome (OAS) can be caused by a broad range of disorders. There are several challenges present in the evaluation of these patients and in reaching a final diagnosis. We report the case of a 69-year-old male who presented with OAS that was determined to be secondary to a rare malignancy (NK cell lymphoma, nasal type). Methods: We analyze the pitfalls and diagnostic delays in this patient’s evaluation. Furthermore we propose a work up for undifferentiated cases of OAS. Results: To accurately diagnose the underlying cause of OAS, a direct biopsy should be obtained whenever possible. The appropriate imaging sequences should be arranged as lesions in this region can be easily missed. Adjunct tests include assessment in the serum and CSF for granulomatous and infectious diseases, along with chest imaging. As many causes are PET enhancing, PET CT is a useful modality for identifying sites for biopsy. Conclusions: OAS can provide a diagnostic challenge for clinicians, however a systematic approach can help determine the underlying etiology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→