MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416177163 · doi:10.63838/001c.145834

Plexiform fibromyxoma located in the distal small bowel: A case report

2025· article· en· W4416177163 on OpenAlexaff
C Rioux, Sungmi Jung, Claude Saint-Jean, Martin Borduas, Sameh Geha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Medical Specialties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibromaDysplasiaDifferential diagnosisFibromatosisCD117MyoepitheliomaStroma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plexiform fibromyxoma (plexiform angiomyxoid myofibroblastic tumour) is a rare mesenchymal tumour primarily located in the gastric antrum. Rare cases of plexiform fibromyxoma located in the oesophagus, duodenum, gallbladder and jejunum have been reported in the literature. Histologically, this tumour is characterized by a spindle to ovoid cell proliferation with a plexiform and multinodular architecture. The stroma is myxoid, fibromyxoid or collagenous with arborizing proliferation of thin-walled capillaries. There are few mitoses, no atypia and no necrosis. Immunohistochemically, the tumour cells are positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA) and vimentin. They may be positive for CD10, desmin, caldesmon and calponin. However, they are negative for DOG1, CD117 (C-Kit), EMA, ALK, S100, CD34, and B-catenin. Here, we report the first case of plexiform fibromyxoma located in the distal ileum. This plexiform fibromyxoma was also found encompassing a probable Meckel diverticulum with foci of high-grade epithelial dysplasia without invasive carcinoma. This case report highlights the importance of considering plexiform fibromyxoma in the differential diagnosis of distal small bowel spindle cell tumours with a myxoid background.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Medical SpecialtiesSame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207