MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081527533 · doi:10.1097/dad.0b013e31819cf6f4

Osteoclast-Like Giant Cell Reaction Associated With Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Report of 2 Cases and Review of the Literature

2009· review· en· W2081527533 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill C. Wooff, Dietrich Werner, Joanne Murphy, Noreen M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health Authority
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsGiant cellMedicinePathologyCD68Context (archaeology)ImmunohistochemistryCellCarcinomaCancerBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The observation of osteoclast-like giant cells (O-LGCs) in intimate association with visceral malignancies is an uncommon phenomenon that has been recognized for over 40 years. Recently, the same observation has been made in relation to cutaneous malignancies. In an article published in 2005, O-LGCs were documented in association with 3 melanomas, and since then, there have been 3 separate case reports recording the presence of these cells in cutaneous carcinomas. In the context of both visceral and cutaneous malignancies, the exact nature of the O-LGCs has been a source of controversy, with respect to whether they represent modified tumor cells or an unusual host response to the neoplasm. We report here 2 additional cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma associated with O-LGCs. The morphological pattern of the giant cell proliferation differed between these cases, taking the form of (1) a giant cell tumor-like nodule apposed to the carcinoma in one and (2) scattered O-LGCs interspersed with tumor cells in the other. Based on scrutiny of routine sections and the contrasting immunohistochemical profiles of the O-LGCs versus the carcinomas, showing CD68 positivity on one hand and high-molecular weight keratin and p63 positivity on the other, we concluded that in both instances, the O-LGC proliferation was a reactive phenomenon. This theory is supported by most publications on the subject. Clinical and histopathological details of the new cases are outlined and integrated with those in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207