Hemangioma hepático gigante: presentación de caso clínico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los hemangiomas hepáticos se consideran las lesiones benignas hepáticas más comunes. Se denominan hemangiomas gigantes cuando su diámetro supera los 5 cm. La etiología es poco clara y su mayor prevalencia se ubica en mujeres de mediana edad. A continuación, se presenta el caso de una paciente de 73 años con dispepsia tipo distrés postprandial. La paciente acudió a consulta donde se documentó una masa heterogénea en segmentos hepáticos VI y VII con componente exofítico, realce periférico y llenado centrípeto en fases tardías. Recibió manejo sintomático con buena respuesta clínica y continúa en seguimiento. La presentación de este caso clínico obedece a que el hemangioma hepático es diagnosticado, por lo general, de forma incidental por imágenes abdominales realizadas desde un enfoque distinto en el paciente, y por las numerosas consultas al servicio de salud por síntomas diferentes a los directamente relacionados con el hemangioma hepático. Adicionalmente, puede generar complicaciones asociadas al efecto de masa, y su prevalencia dentro de las lesiones hepáticas benignas es considerable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".