Management of Infantile Parotid Gland Hemangiomas: A 40-Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infantile hemangiomas represent one of the most common childhood tumors. The authors have previously demonstrated that the most appropriate management for such tumors is a nonoperative approach. Some authors have recently advocated surgical management as the primary treatment. Medical treatment such as steroids or interferon therapy has also been proposed. Definitive treatment for infantile parotid gland hemangioma remains controversial. METHODS: In the retrospective study portion of this article, the authors reviewed the last 400 charts of children with hemangiomas managed at the Montreal Children's Hospital over the past 40 years. Twenty patients with parotid hemangiomas were identified. In the literature review portion, the Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed databases were used to retrieve all published original articles on the management of parotid hemangiomas from 1950 to December of 2008. RESULTS: All of the authors' patients underwent successful nonoperative management, with 100 percent resolution of their parotid hemangiomas within 2 years of diagnosis, with an average follow-up time of 8.6 +/- 5.7 years. There were no complications of any of the treatments. The literature review retrieved a total of 413 patients in 12 original articles and four case reports. Management included observation and medical (steroid or interferon) and/or surgical treatment. Complications included failure to thrive, scarring, facial nerve palsy, and death. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have shown that nonoperative therapy resulted in regression and involution of infantile parotid hemangiomas with no major complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".