MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588085527 · doi:10.1002/hed.24152

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the sinonasal region

2015· review· en· W1588085527 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Bell, Randal S. Weber, Franco DeMonte, Asterios Triantafyllou, James S. Lewis, Antonio Cardesa, Pieter J. Slootweg, Göran Stenman, Douglas R. Gnepp, Kenneth O. Devaney, Juan P. Rodrigo, Alessandra Rinaldo, Bruce M. Wenig, William H. Westra, Justin A. Bishop, Henrik Hellquist, Jennifer L. Hunt, Kimihide Kusafuka, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Michelle D. Williams, Robert P. Takes, Alfio Ferlito

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsthesioneuroblastomaNeuroendocrine carcinomaNeuroblastomaPathologyGrading (engineering)Head and neckNeuroendocrine tumorsImmunohistochemistryMedicinePhenotypeBiologyNasal cavityAnatomyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the sinonasal region, which are relatively uncommon but clinically very important, are reviewed here in the light of current knowledge. Using a definition for neuroendocrine based on phenotypic, histologic, immunohistochemical, and electron microscopic features rather than histogenetic criteria, sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinomas are examined with a particular emphasis on the small-cell and large-cell subtypes. This is followed by revisiting olfactory neuroblastoma because it is also a tumor that shows a neuroendocrine phenotype. Kadish clinical and Hyams histologic grading systems as prognosticators of olfactory neuroblastoma are also considered in detail. Finally, controversies regarding sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma as a neuroendocrine tumor are discussed and a possible relationship with high-grade olfactory neuroblastoma is explored. Genetic events and current management of these tumors are also outlined. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E2259-E2266, 2016.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations79
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207