Perspectivas no uso da microscopia confocal in vivo na prática do cirurgião dermatológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novos metodos de imagem, como a tomografia optica de coerencia, a ressonância magnetica e a ultrassonografia de alta frequencia vem sendo desenvolvidos para uso na dermatologia. Entre estes novos metodos, destacamos a microscopia confocal de reflectância in vivo (MCR) como a que mais tem se difundido nos grandes centros de oncologia cutânea e que recentemente mais tem gerado publicacoes nos grandes periodicos, por permitir resolucao semelhante a histologica. A microscopia confocal in vivo tem encontrado espaco nas muitas limitacoes que ainda se impoem ao diagnostico dermatoscopico das neoplasias cutâneas, especialmente lesoes acromicas ou hipopigmentadas, lesoes na face ou em mucosas. Ainda, alguns estudos tem sugerido grande utilidade na avaliacao de margens cirurgicas e na determinacao do melhor local para a realizacao de biopsias excisionais. Este trabalho pretende descrever brevemente o funcionamento do microscopio confocal de reflectância a laser e discutir algumas perspectivas que despontam para seu uso na pratica cotidiana do cirurgiao dermatologico
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".