MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Malignant Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue of the Lacrimal Gland

2001· review· en· W2038286567 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Agulnik, Richard Tsang, Michael A. Baker, Martin S. Kazdan, J. Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLacrimal glandMALT lymphomaRadiation therapyLymphomaPathologyMucosa-associated lymphoid tissueLymphatic systemLacrimal apparatusSalivary glandThyroidRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas are increasingly recognized as a distinct clinical-pathologic entity among the non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. It usually presents as a localized disease process in extranodal tissues or organs such as stomach, salivary gland, thyroid gland, and not infrequently in orbital adnexa. Radiotherapy has an important role in the management, although long-term clinical results specifically addressing localized MALT lymphomas are lacking. We report a case of localized MALT lymphoma of the lacrimal gland, with successful treatment by radiation therapy (total dose 25 Gy) with 3 years of clinical follow-up. A review of the published literature was undertaken to assess the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of this disease involving orbital tissues, specifically, the lacrimal gland. Based on previous reports of patients with orbital lymphomas (low grade) and pseudolymphomas, of which many will now be recognized as MALT lymphomas, radiotherapy has an excellent local control rate and would be the treatment of choice. However, long-term results of pathologically confirmed cases of MALT lymphomas need further study because occasional relapses at distant sites can occur.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207