MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neoplasms and Tumor-Like Lesions of the Hand

2012· article· en· W1990666809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Badr AbdullGaffar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasal cellMelanomaSoft tissueBroad spectrumPathologyDermatologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hand is a very versatile functional part of the body and therefore more prone to trauma and thus trauma-related tumor-like lesions are more likely to develop in the hand and wrist region. A broad spectrum of variable lesions can involve the hand. Most are benign non-neoplastic trauma-induced tumor-like lesions. True neoplasms of the hand are predominantly benign. Primary malignant tumors of the hand are rare, apart from the common cutaneous malignancies, for example basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma. Secondary metastases are very rare. Most of the hand lesions are histologically recognizable without problems. Certain highly proliferative and cellular lesions, particularly soft-tissue and skeletal benign pseudosarcomatous tumors and tumor-like lesions, can lead to misdiagnosis. The unwary pathologists, on occasions, could misinterpret them as sarcomas with catastrophic surgical management consequences for the patients. Awareness of the spectrum of neoplasms and pseudotumors that involve the hand will help pathologists avoid these interpretation errors and guide surgeons to the best surgical management for the patients. We conducted a retrospective review study to investigate the prevalence and spectrum of hand neoplasms and tumor-like lesions in a setting of a general community-based hospital practice compared with studies conducted in specialized tertiary reference-based hospitals in developed countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207