Histopathological review of sebaceous carcinoma of the eyelid
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
BACKGROUND: Sebaceous carcinoma of the eyelid can clinically mimic benign conditions, such as recurrent chalazion and inflammation and histopathologically squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). This retrospective study was undertaken as an attempt to improve the characterization and consequently the diagnosis of these tumors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on eyelid specimens diagnosed as sebaceous carcinoma retrieved from Henry C. Witelson Ophthalmic Pathology Registry, Canada and Hospital Luis S. Bulnes Pathology Registry, Mexico. Two independent, masked pathologists reviewed the H&E microslides. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were retrieved, 31 from Canada and 13 from Mexico. Cytoplasmic vacuoles were observed in 48% of the cases. Eighty-four percent of the cases were classified as poorly differentiated lesions. Of these, 75% had features similar to squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC), some with dyskeratosis (30%) and 7% resembled BCC. Solid growth pattern was seen in 26.2% of the cases and lobular growth pattern in 26.2%. Superficial spread resembling Bowen-like disease was observed in 33% of the cases, pagetoid features in 33% and comedocarcinoma in 31.8%. CONCLUSION: Sebaceous carcinoma presented as a poorly differentiated lesion in most cases of this series, which suggests a possibility of misdiagnosis because of its similarities to SqCC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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