MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212815741 · doi:10.14740/jmc2902w

Anal Canal Duplication in a 40-Year-Old Adult

2018· article· en· W4212815741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Neves, Raquel Dias, Hugo Ribeiro, Marta Ferreira, Narcisa Guimarães, Inês Mónica, Nuno Azenha, Lucas Diniz da Conceição

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnal canalAnusSurgeryAbscessGene duplicationRectum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anal canal duplication (ACD) is the rarest congenital malformation of the digestive tract and is associated with other congenital malformations. The clinical case reports a 40 years old woman who had two episodes of anal abscesses treated with surgical drainage within 1 year. In proctology consultation, the examination revealed a structure in the midline, posterior to the native anus. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and anal echoendoscopy confirmed the presence of a tubular structure posterior to the anal canal, compatible with duplication of the anal canal. The patient was proposed for surgical excision but refused. Seven years later, the patient had another anal abscess. She was again proposed for surgery and refused. Around 60 cases of ACD are currently described worldwide. The diagnosis is usually made at an early stage of life. Our patient was diagnosed at the age of 40 years, constituting one of the most elderly patient diagnosed with ACD. J Med Cases. 2018;9(2):61-63 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2902w

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207