MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221093446 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.855336

Cronkhite-Canada Syndrome Associated With Superficial Esophageal Carcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review

2022· article· en· W4221093446 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yan Zhao, Fujing Lv, Yang Xun, Yongjun Wang, Shutian Zhang, Peng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagusEndoscopic mucosal resectionDuodenumGERDHypoalbuminemiaDermatologyGastroenterologyInternal medicineEndoscopyDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cronkhite-Canada syndrome is a rare disease characterized by generalized gastrointestinal polyposis, alopecia, skin pigmentation, and onychotrophia with no generally recognized mechanism of pathogenesis. There is a tendency of malignant transformation or coexistence of gastrointestinal malignancies in patients with Cronkhite-Canada syndrome. Case Description: The patient was a 67-year-old man who complained of dyspepsia, hair loss, skin hyperpigmentation, and pedal edema. Lab tests showed hypoalbuminemia. Endoscopic findings included superficial esophageal carcinoma and numerous polyps in the stomach, duodenum, and colon. The patient was treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for the esophagus lesion, endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps, and glucocorticoids for Cronkhite-Canada syndrome. Conclusion: Esophagus cancer is a rare comorbidity of Cronkhite-Canada syndrome. Endoscopic examination and surveillance are critical for patients with Cronkhite-Canada syndrome for malignant gastrointestinal tumors.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207