Oncocytic Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is the most common salivary gland malignancy. Oncocytic MEC (OMEC) has been rarely reported with previous cases suggesting they are largely cystic low-grade neoplasms with a favorable prognosis. The differential diagnosis of OMEC includes numerous oncocytic/"oncocytoid" neoplasms. Some are benign while others are aggressive. Recent evidence suggests that p63 is a reliable marker in the diagnosis of conventional MEC but has not been explored in OMEC. We searched the archives of various institutions for examples of OMEC to re-appraise the grade, and to evaluate p63 immunohistochemistry as a tool to separate OMEC from its potential mimics. A total of 12 cases were identified. There were 6 males and 6 females with an age range of 30 to 79 years. Most occurred in the parotid (9) with 1 each in the sublingual gland, hard palate and neck. They showed minimal cystic content and were infiltrative and solid tumors spanning all grades. All tumors had focal mucin production and were composed almost exclusively of oncocytic cells with 2 cases demonstrating conventional MEC areas. All 6 cases tested showed the majority of oncocytic cells staining with p63 in a diffuse pattern, demonstrating its utility in the diagnosis of OMEC. Of the 6 cases with follow-up information, 1 case had local recurrence 8 years after the initial surgery. Three cases showed skin or bone invasion. None had lymph node/distant metastases. In summary, OMEC behaves as a low-grade tumor, and is diffusely positive for p63, which may aid in its differential diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".