MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393386923 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31040138

Successful Multimodal Treatment of Intracranial Growing Teratoma Syndrome with Malignant Features

2024· article· en· W4393386923 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Daiken Satake, Manabu Natsumeda, Kaishi Satomi, Mari Tada, Taro Sato, Noritaka Okubo, K. Kawabe, Haruhiko Takahashi, Yoshihiro Tsukamoto, Masayasu Okada, Masakazu Sano, Haruko Iwabuchi, Nao Shibata, Masaru Imamura, Chihaya Imai, Hirokazu Takami, Koichi Ichimura, Ryo Nishikawa, Hajime Umezu, Akiyoshi Kakita, Makoto Oishi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeighbourhood Small GrantsJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsTeratomaMedicineMalignant transformationPathologyMature teratomaGerm cell tumorsGerminomaChemotherapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular analysis of the growing teratoma syndrome has not been extensively studied. Here, we report a 14-year-old boy with a growing mass during treatment for a mixed germ cell tumor of the pineal region. Tumor markers were negative; thus, growing teratoma syndrome was suspected. A radical resection via the occipital transtentorial approach was performed, and histopathological examination revealed a teratoma with malignant features. Methylation classifier analysis confirmed the diagnosis of teratoma, and DMRT1 loss and 12p gain were identified by copy number variation analysis, potentially elucidating the cause of growth and malignant transformation of the teratoma. The patient remains in remission after intense chemoradiation treatment as a high-risk germ cell tumor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207