Ductal adenomas of salivary gland showing features of striated duct differentiation (‘striated duct adenoma’): a report of six cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe a salivary adenoma composed largely of unilayered ducts resembling striated ducts, and to differentiate it from similar adenomas, including canalicular and intercalated duct adenoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six unilayered ductal adenomas were identified in parotid (four) and palate (two). They were encapsulated, ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 cm and composed of closely apposed ducts with virtually no stroma. The ducts varied in size and showed cysts up to 0.1 cm. The cells were eosinophilic and bland. Prominent cell membranes, reminiscent of 'striations' of normal striated ducts, were seen. The typical epithelial 'beading' pattern with abundant stroma of canalicular adenoma was absent. The tumours expressed keratins (six of six) and S100 (five of six). Smooth muscle actin (SMA) revealed no myoepithelial cells. Two tumours showed focal bilayered ducts with calponin or smooth muscle myosin heavy chain, but the tumours were largely unilayered. Only isolated cells in three tumours were positive with p63; a pattern identical to striated ducts. In contrast, the normal excretory and intercalated ducts all contained diffuse bilayering with basal or myoepithelial markers. CONCLUSIONS: Striated duct adenomas are unilayered ductal tumours that recapitulate normal striated ducts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".