MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244229501 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.123

Diagnosis and prognosis of malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis

2012· article· en· W4244229501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo Hai, Yang Yu, Yajun Xiao, Bing Li, Chaohui Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalretininTunica vaginalisMesotheliomaMedicineGenitourinary systemScrotumSpermatic cordPathologySurgeryImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnosis and prognosis of malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis through an additional 6 patients with urogenital mesothelioma.Methods: Six patients with urogenital mesothelioma who underwent adequate surgical procedures and histopathologic analysis from 1990 to 2009 were identified and retrospectively reviewed.Results: Six patients between the ages of 26 and 78 years with urogenital mesothelioma, 5 of which originated in the scrotum and 1 in the spermatic cord. Histopathologic analysis showed that CK5/6 and calretinin were positive in all cases, 5 cases were positive for vimentin, and 1 case showed focal weak positive reaction with MOC3, but none of the cases stained for CEA or CD15. The overall recurrence rate of urogenital mesothelioma after surgery was 5/6, including local recurrences and fatalities due to tumour.Conclusions: In cases of mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis, the histopathologic markers we chose helped confirm the histopathological diagnosis; adequate surgical procedures are typically not curative, and this tumour is often fatal.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207