MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997056945 · doi:10.4103/0974-9233.114788

Eyelid masses: A 10-year survey from a tertiary eye hospital in Tehran

2013· article· en· W1997056945 on OpenAlexaff
Abbas Bagheri, Azadeh Kanaani, RezaBeheshti Zavareh, Hamed Esfandiari, Maryam Aletaha, Hossein Salour

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddle East African Journal of Ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEyelidBasal cell carcinomaMalignancyDermatologyDemographicsPapillomaLesionBasal cellRadiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the demographics and clinical features of eyelid masses in a tertiary eye hospital over a 10-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients admitted with eyelid tumors from 2000 to 2010. Data were collected and analyzed on the demographic features, location of the tumor, types of treatment, and pathologic findings. RESULTS: A total number of 182 patients were evaluated of which, 82 cases were benign and 100 cases were malignant neoplasms. The most common benign tumors included melanocytic nevi (35%), papilloma (19.5%), and cysts (11%). The most frequent malignant tumors included basal cell carcinoma (BCC) (83%), squamous cell carcinoma (8%) and sebaceous gland carcinoma (6%). The most common site for malignancy was the lower lid followed by the upper lid. BCC recurred in 16 cases that were most frequent in the lower lid. CONCLUSION: Melanocytic nevus, papilloma and cysts are the most common benign lesions and BCC is the most common malignant lesion in the eyelids. Recurrence is a feature of BCC especially in the lower lid.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiddle East African Journal of OphthalmologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207