MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988967665 · doi:10.1259/dmfr/29949053

Keratocystic odontogenic tumour: systematic review

2010· review· en· W1988967665 on OpenAlexafffund
D S MacDonald-Jankowski

Bibliographic record

VenueDentomaxillofacial Radiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsRadiographyMedicineRadiological weaponDentistryOdontogenicPresentation (obstetrics)OrthodonticsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to evaluate the principal clinical and conventional radiographic features of non-syndromic keratocystic odontogenic tumour (KCOT) by systematic review (SR), and to compare the frequencies between four global groups. METHODS: The databases searched were the PubMed interface of Medline and LILACS. Only those reports of KCOTs that occurred in a series of consecutive cases, in the reporting authors' caseload, were considered. RESULTS: 51 reports, of 49 series of cases, were included in the SR. 11 SR-included series were in languages other than English. KCOTs affected males more frequently and were three times more prevalent in the mandible. Although the mean age at first presentation was 37 years, the largest proportion of cases first presented in the third decade. The main symptom was swelling. Over a third were found incidentally. Nearly two-thirds displayed buccolingual expansion. Over a quarter of cases recurred. Only a quarter of all SR-included reported series of cases included details of at least one radiological feature. The East Asian global group presented significantly as well-defined, even corticated, multilocular radiolucencies with buccolingual expansion. The KCOTs affecting the Western global group significantly displayed an association with unerupted teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of large series that would have revealed detailed radiographic description and long-term outcomes of non-syndromic KCOT was lacking.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations120
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentomaxillofacial RadiologySame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207