MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: 35 patients treated with Mohs micrographic surgery using paraffin sections

2010· article· en· W1608707730 on OpenAlexaff
Wee Ping Tan, Richard Barlow, Alistair Robson, Habib A. Kurwa, John McKenna, R. Mallipeddi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatofibrosarcoma protuberansMedicineMohs surgeryDermatofibrosarcomaDermatologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) has conventionally been treated with wide local excision. More recently Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been advocated. OBJECTIVES: To assess our departmental experience with DFSP in the context of a literature review relating to DFSP treated with MMS. METHODS: This was a case review of 35 patients with DFSP treated between 1998 and 2009 with MMS using paraffin-embedded sections. RESULTS: Seventeen patients required one horizontal layer to clear their tumour, 10 patients needed two and eight patients needed three layers or more. The median preoperative clinical size was 6 cm(2) (range 0·75-54·8) and the median postoperative wound size was 46·8 cm(2) (range 4-145·2). Tumour persistence has not been observed in any of our patients after a median follow-up duration of 29·5 months (range 6-146). CONCLUSIONS: We present 35 DFSP patients, none of whom showed persistent tumour after treatment with 'slow' MMS using paraffin sections. We advocate MMS as the treatment of choice for DFSP, especially for tumours over the head and neck region where tissue conservation is particularly important.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207