MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243082133 · doi:10.14740/jmc2823w

Laparoscopic Enucleation of Schwannoma Masquerading as a Leiomyoma

2017· article· en· W4243082133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Howard S. Fan, Ahmed Arifur Rahman, Michael Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationSurgeryEsophagectomyDysphagiaEsophagusLeiomyomaSchwannomaEsophageal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a case, literature review, and video of a transabdominal laparoscopic enucleation of an esophageal schwannoma. A 53-year-old female with dysphagia was found to have a 23 × 27 mm mass in the lower esophagus, which was initially diagnosed as a leiomyoma on endoscopic ultrasound without biopsy. At the time of her laparoscopic enucleation 12 months later, the lesion had grown to 60 × 55 × 30 mm and was excised with a full-thickness segment of the esophageal wall, with closure of the resulting defect over a bougie. Postoperatively, the patient’s recovery was complicated by an esophageal leak which was successfully managed with endoscopic drainage. Esophageal schwannomas are rare esophageal lesions that have historically been treated with esophagectomy. Thoracoscopic or laparoscopic enucleations of smaller lesions have been more recently reported but larger lesions have usually required open surgery. Internally placed endoscopic drains have previously been shown to be a valid alternative to external drainage in patients with contained collections after resection surgery. They have the advantage of allowing patients to continue oral fluids during the recovery phase rather than relying on enteral or parenteral feeding. We propose that laparoscopic transabdominal enucleation of esophageal schwannoma with closure of the resulting full-thickness defect be considered as an organ and function sparing alternative for the management of large lower esophageal schwannomas. We further propose that contained leaks resulting from esophageal operations can successfully be managed with internal endoscopic drainage. J Med Cases. 2017;8(7):215-218 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2823w

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207