The Use of Ovarian Vein Sampling to Lateralize a Virilizing Leydig Cell Ovarian Tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Leydig cell tumors are a rare androgen-secreting ovarian tumor. We present a patient with virilization symptoms secondary to a Leydig cell tumor, with nonrevealing imaging studies, that was localized using ovarian vein sampling (OVS). Case Report: A 56-year-old postmenopausal woman was referred by her gynecologist to the endocrinology clinic for voice-deepening, clitoral enlargement, scalp hair loss, and excessive body hair growth. Her total testosterone was 11.5 (0.3-1.3 nmol/L), bioavailable testosterone was 7.19 (0.1-0.6 nmol/L), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate was 4.0 (0.8-4.9 μmol/L). Transvaginal ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging showed no adrenal or ovarian masses bilaterally. On adrenal vein sampling (AVS) and OVS, total testosterone from the left gonadal vein was 780.0 (0.3-1.3 nmol/L) and right gonadal vein was 18.6 (0.3-1.3 nmol/L), with a left-to-right ovarian testosterone ratio of 41.94. A bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was performed, and a 1.0 cm Leydig cell tumor in the left ovary was noted on histopathology. One month after surgery, her total and bioavailable testosterone were <0.4 (0.3-1.3 nmol/L and 0.1-0.6 nmol/L, respectively). At 6 months, she had normalization of her voice to baseline, decreased clitoral size, decreased hair growth on her back, and improvement in her male-pattern baldness. Discussion: OVS and AVS are useful diagnostic investigation tools in cases of virilization, in which imaging is nonrevealing. Our case supports previously suggested left-to-right ovarian vein testosterone ratio of ≥15 being associated with a left-sided tumor. Conclusion: Few cases have been published on the interpretation of AVS and OVS in the setting of virilization. Previously suggested ratios for lateralization were valid for this patient.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".