MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087856624 · doi:10.1097/scs.0b013e31805151d3

Odontogenic Tumors in Childhood

2008· article· en· W2087856624 on OpenAlexaff
Carlo M. Mortellaro, Mattia Berrone, G. Turatti, Lia Rimondini, Adalberto Brach del Prever, Federico Canavese, Angela Pucci, G. Farronato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmeloblastomaOdontogenic myxomaOdontogenicIncidence (geometry)Odontogenic tumorOdontomaMaxillaPathologyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The odontogenic tumors are an unusual group of lesions of the jaws derived from embryologic tooth-forming tissues and presenting in a large number of histologic patterns. More common in pediatric age and adolescence than in adult age, the odontogenic tumors can be observed casually or after the appearance of nonspecific symptoms. Because of their slow-growth tendency, usually they do not cause pain. The odontogenic tumors grow in the jaw, through the haversian system, without metastasis but with and high probability of relapse. A retrospective study of 86 cases treated between 1997 and 2005 is reported. The percent of diagnosed cases that were benign was 98.8%, and just one case of malign neoplasm is reported. The most frequent tumor accounted for in the reported sample was odontoma (39.5%) followed by odontogenic fibroma (12.8%). Ameloblastoma and myxoma showed the same incidence (11.6%). Early diagnosis, together with a correct histologic diagnosis, allows a preservative and effective surgical treatment and is necessary to reduce the risk of relapse.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207