MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395449718 · doi:10.1007/s00404-024-07510-5

Gynecologic perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas): a review of recent evidence

2024· review· en· W4395449718 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Levin, Mariana Pilon Capella, Raanan Meyer, Yoav Brezinov, Walter H. Gotlieb

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsMedicinePerivascular Epithelioid CellPathologyEpithelioid cellImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gynecologic perivascular epithelioid cell (PEC) tumors, or 'PEComas,' represent a rare and intriguing subset of tumors within the female reproductive tract. This systematic literature review aims to provide an updated understanding of gynecologic PEComas based on available literature and data. Although PEComa is rare, there are varied tumor-site presentations across gynecologic organs, with uterine PEComas being the most prevalent. There is scarce high-quality literature regarding gynecologic PEComa, and studies on malignant PEComa underscore the challenges in diagnosis. Among the diverse mutations, mTOR alterations are the most prominent. Survival analysis reveals a high rate of local recurrence and metastatic disease, which commonly affects the lungs. Treatment strategies are limited, however mTOR inhibitors have pivotal role when indicated and chemotherapy may also be used. with some cases demonstrating promising responses. The paucity of data underscores the need for multicentric studies, an international registry for PEComas, and standardized reporting in case series to enhance clinical and pathological data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207