Canadian Association of Neuropathologists Abstracts of papers and cases presented at the 44th Annual Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least five case reports of "giant cell ependymomas" -three of them in the spinal cord or filum terminale -have been published.We recently encountered a "giant cell ependymoma" in the filum terminale of a 36-year-old man.The tumor had characteristic nonmyxopapillary histologic features of ependymoma, but also prominent multifocal nuclear gigantism, including nuclei measuring more than 50 micra in major dimension and occasional nuclear pseudoinclusions.There were no features of anaplasia, and Rosenthal fibers were focally extremely abundant.To clarify the relationship of this tumor with other ependymomas, we compared the histologic findings with those in twelve other ependymomas of the spinal cord and filum, of which three were myxopapillary.Among these twelve comparison cases, none had such conspicuous nuclear gigantism as the index case.However, two (both non-myxopapillary) had rare to occasional nuclei measuring more than 50 micra in major dimension; and rare nuclear pseudoinclusions.Among the remaining ten ependymomas studied, there was moderate nuclear pleomorphism (occasional to frequent nuclei measuring 25 micra or more in major dimension) in more than half.One or more nuclear pseudoinclusions were found in two."Giant cell ependymomas" are apparently not a homogeneous entity.Moderate nuclear pleomorphism is relatively common in spinal ependymomas, and nuclear gigantism of variable extent is seen occasionally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.067 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".