MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403613801 · doi:10.7759/cureus.71985

Nesidioblastosis in Pregnancy: Navigating the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges of a Rare Condition

2024· article· en· W4403613801 on OpenAlexaff
Basel Darawsha, Ayat Agbaria, Safi Khuri

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNesidioblastosisPregnancyObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nesidioblastosis, a non-neoplastic proliferation of the pancreatic islet cells of Langerhans, is a rare cause of endogenous hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Although initially thought of as a congenital disease affecting pediatric patients, it is well known nowadays to affect adults as well. In addition, it is increasingly documented as a rare sequela of bariatric surgeries. Management options include medical and surgical therapies, with little known about the beneficial effects of both. Nesidioblastosis affecting pregnant patients is even rarer, with scarce literature known about the optimal treatment. Herein, we present a 22-year-old woman in the 20th week of gestation who experienced symptomatic episodes of severe life-threatening hypoglycemia. The management of this case required a multidisciplinary team approach to navigate the complexities of diagnosis and treatment. The complexity of this case was further heightened by the differential diagnosis, including conditions like insulinoma. The scarcity of literature on nesidioblastosis in pregnancy further complicated the case, underscoring the need for more research and case studies to guide clinical practice.

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)0.008
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→