Esophageal Carcinoma in Children: Report of 2 Cases and a Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esophageal carcinoma in children and adolescents is extremely rare. Here, we report 2 cases of pediatric esophageal carcinoma presenting with progressive dysphagia. There was not any underlying specific risk factor in our cases. The histopathological subtypes were adenocarcinoma in one and squamous cell carcinoma in another case. Response to combined modality treatment was good in the case of adenocarcinoma, while the patient with squamous cell carcinoma was unresponsive to treatment and died of the progressive disease. We reviewed the pediatric cases of esophageal carcinoma reported in the literature. Progressive dysphagia was observed in 89% of these cases. One third of pediatric cases had underlying risk factors. Squamous cell carcinoma is a more common type of childhood esophageal carcinoma. In contrast to adults, pediatric esophageal squamous cell carcinoma may distribute throughout the esophagus. Esophageal adenocarcinoma was seen in the distal esophagus in pediatric cases. Metastatic disease was found in 48% of pediatric patients at presentation, and the prognosis is poor. Collaborative efforts are needed for success in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".