Intercalated Duct Lesions of Salivary Gland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercalated duct lesions (IDLs) are rare, poorly understood and not well-studied lesions that have been associated with a small number of epithelial-myoepithelial carcinomas (EMC) and basal cell adenomas. To examine the nature of IDLs and their association with salivary gland tumors, we reviewed 34 lesions in 32 patients. The IDLs were stained with CK7, estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors, lysozyme, S100, calponin, and CK14. The patients ranged in age from 19 to 80 years (mean 53.8) with a 1.7:1 female predominance. The majorities of IDLs were parotid lesions (82%), were small and nodular (average size 3.1 mm) and showed 3 architectural patterns: hyperplasia (20), adenoma (9), and hybrid forms (5). In 59% of cases, IDLs were seen in conjunction with another salivary gland tumor, most commonly basal cell adenoma (8 cases), followed by EMC (3 cases). One case showed a combination of intercalated duct hyperplasia and basal cell adenoma. The IDLs stained diffusely with CK7 (100%) and S100 (73%) and focally for ER (91%) and lysozyme (100%). Calponin and CK14 highlighted a thin myoepithelial cell layer around all ducts (100%). Normal intercalated ducts were also consistently positive for CK7 and lysozyme, and focally for ER, but were S100 negative. In summary, IDLs have a variety of patterns ranging from hyperplasia to adenoma with hybrid lesions and share morphologic and immunophenotypic features with normal intercalated ducts. There is an association with basal cell adenomas and EMC, which lends credence to their role as a putative precursor lesion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".