MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039922009 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.041608

Skin adnexal neoplasms—part 2: An approach to tumours of cutaneous sweat glands

2006· review· en· W2039922009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer and Skin Lesions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApocrineSweat glandPathologyEccrine sweatSWEATMedicineHidradenomaDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumours of cutaneous sweat glands are uncommon, with a wide histological spectrum, complex classification and many different terms often used to describe the same tumour. Furthermore, many eccrine/apocrine lesions coexist within hamartomas or within lesions with composite/mixed differentiation. In addition to the eccrine and apocrine glands, two other skin sweat glands have recently been described: the apoeccrine and the mammary-like glands of the anogenital area. In this review (the second of two articles on skin adnexal neoplasms), common as well as important benign and malignant lesions of cutaneous sweat glands are described, and a summary for differentiating primary adnexal neoplasms from metastatic carcinoma is outlined, striving to maintain a common and acceptable terminology in this complex subject. Composite/mixed adnexal tumours are also discussed briefly.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.327 · 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