Basal cell tumor or cutaneous basilar epithelial neoplasm? Rethinking the cytologic diagnosis of basal cell tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 1-cm-diameter, red, raised, cutaneous mass over the dorsal surface of the left third metacarpal of a 6-year-old neutered male yellow Labrador Retriever was aspirated. The aspirate contained cohesive clusters of cells, some containing cells with increased pleomorphism. Cellular debris (some keratinized), melanin, large numbers of macrophages, a few neutrophils, and fibroblasts were also observed. The cytologic interpretation was malignant neoplasia with histiocytic inflammation. Differentials included a carcinoma or, given the melanin pigment and variable morphology of the cells, possibly malignant melanoma. Histologically, the tumor was diagnosed as a basal cell epithelioma. Neoplasms that once were lumped into the broad histologic diagnosis of basal cell tumors have since been split into distinct entities, dependent on evidence of differentiation into epidermis, trichofollicular epithelium, or sweat or sebaceous glands. Although histologic reclassification has resulted in removal of most of these entities from the original basal cell tumor category, a cytologic diagnosis of basal cell tumor continues to be used to represent the large, heterogeneous group of epidermal, trichofollicular, and adnexal skin tumors with basal cell characteristics. The case in this report demonstrates the heterogeneity of neoplasms that may be diagnosed cytologically as basal cell tumors and supports the need for cytologic criteria and nomenclature that better reflect potential variation in tissue differentiation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".