Sebaceous gland carcinoma of the head and neck: The Princess Margaret Hospital experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors predicting outcomes in sebaceous gland carcinomas. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of patients with sebaceous carcinomas of periorbital (n = 33) and extraorbital sites (n = 13). RESULTS: Patients with periorbital tumors had higher recurrence rates than did patients with extraorbital tumors (64% vs 23%; p = .032). Patients who were older than 60 years (p = .035) and had lower eyelid tumors (p < .0001) had a lower disease-free survival rate than did patients with upper eyelid tumors. Patients with sebaceous carcinomas had a high rate (60%) of occult lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: Periorbital tumors are associated with poorer outcomes than are extraorbital tumors. Lower eyelid carcinomas have the worst prognosis and should be treated more aggressively. Our findings of a high incidence of occult neck disease and a high rate of regional recurrence in patients with sebaceous carcinomas support the consideration of prophylactic elective neck dissections for treating such 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".