MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400926148 · doi:10.1007/s00586-024-08415-2

Growth rate of a giant Tarlov (perineural) cyst with intrapelvic extension

2024· article· en· W4400926148 on OpenAlexaff
Erkan Kaptanoğlu, Ümit Ali Malçok, Doğa Kaptanoğlu, Serdar Çatav

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Spine Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
KeywordsMedicineCystMagnetic resonance imagingSagittal planeSurgeryLow back painBack painRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Giant Tarlov cysts (GTCs) are perineural cysts and their presacral intrapelvic extension are extremely rare entities. We present a case of GTC with intrapelvic extension who has preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) follow-ups of 12 years, and we demonstrate the annual growth rate and the time-size correlation of a GTC. METHODS: Case report. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 37-year-old woman was admitted with left gluteal pain radiating to left foot, left leg numbness, progressed over 12 years. On MRI, starting from the L5-S1 level, a giant Tarlov cyst with an atypical configuration, is observed. The patient had a known sacral Tarlov cyst, first discovered on MRI obtained 12 years before the surgery. She had 6 consecutive MRI follow-ups in 12 years preoperatively. The cysts diameters have been measured and the growth rate was estimated. We showed for the first time that presented GTC grows in in both Sagittal Diagonal (SD) and Sagittal Craniocaudal (SC) diameters over time with overall annual growth rates, 7.671% for RGR_SD and 6.237% for RGR_SC. CONCLUSION: When the time-size correlation is observed, it becomes evident that the GTSs' growing speed increases over the years because of minimal resistance in the intrapelvic cavity. Early surgery may be considered to prevent rapid growth in the intrapelvic cavity and to reduce possible complications of the giant cyst.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207