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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".