Use of fluorescent light in detecting malignant and premalignant lesions in the oral cavity: a prospective, single-blind study.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of the VELscope in detecting malignant and premalignant oral cavity lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Head and neck oncology clinic at an academic tertiary care centre. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-five patients with a history of smoking, alcohol use, and/or head and neck cancer were recruited into the study. The VELscope was used to examine patients' oral cavities after a clinical examination. Biopsies were then taken from suspicious areas. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients included in the study, 33 underwent biopsies prompted by a clinical examination, the VELscope, or both. Biopsy results that showed invasive malignancy or dysplasias were considered positive. Five positive biopsies for premalignant lesions were detected only by the VELscope and were not visible on clinical examination. On the other hand, only one positive biopsy for a premalignant lesion was detected by the clinical examination only and not seen on the VELscope. Seven positive biopsies were detected by both methods. This indicates that the diagnostic yield from a regular examination was 47% (95% CI 23-72) and that the diagnostic yield from the addition of the VELscope was an additional 31% (95% CI 11-59). Sensitivity and specificity for the VELscope were 92% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Velscope may add sensitivity to the clinical examination and be a useful adjunct in high-risk patients.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it