MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377939644 · doi:10.22088/cjim.14.2.391

Concomitant occurrence of appendiceal mucocele and ulcerative colitis: Case reports.

2023· article· en· W4377939644 on OpenAlexaff
Hafez Fakheri, Zohreh Bari, Mohammad Yaghoobi, Parham Rabiee

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucoceleUlcerative colitisAppendixColonoscopyConcomitantAbdominal painTubular adenomaGastroenterologyInternal medicineSurgeryDiseaseColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Appendiceal mucocele (AM) is a rare disease, manifested by accumulation of mucus in appendiceal lumen. The role of ulcerative colitis (UC) in the occurrence of appendiceal mucocele is not known. However, it is suggested that AM may be a presentation of colorectal cancer in IBD patients. Case Presentation: Here, we presented 3 cases of concomitant AM and ulcerative colitis. The first patient was a 55-year-old woman with 2-year history of left sided UC; the second person was a 52-year-old woman with 12-year history of pan-UC; and the third patient was a 60-year-old man with 11-year history of pan-colitis. They were all referred due to indolent right lower quadrant abdominal pain. Imaging evaluations suggested the presence of appendiceal mucocele and therefore, they all went under operation. Pathologic evaluation reported AM of mucinous cyst adenoma type; low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm of appendix with intact serosa; and cyst-adenoma type AM for the three above-mentioned patients, respectively. Conclusion: Although concomitant occurrence of AM and ulcerative colitis is rare, regarding the potential of neoplastic changes in AM, physicians must keep in mind the diagnosis of AM in UC patients with non-specific abdominal RLQ pain or bulged appendiceal orifice during colonoscopy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207