MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089557824 · doi:10.1136/bcr.09.2009.2272

Limbal stem cell failure secondary to advanced conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma: a clinicopathological case report

2009· article· en· W2089557824 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Lyall, Sathish Srinivasan, Fiona Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStem cellBiopsyTransplantationHistopathologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 67-year-old man with a history of multiple myeloma (treated with chemotherapy) was referred with a left hyperaemic conjunctival lesion covering almost 360° of the limbus and extending onto the corneal surface. Conjunctival biopsy revealed conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia. Initial treatment consisted of topical and intralesional injections of interferon α-2b. The patient subsequently developed limbal stem cell deficiency resulting in a persistent non-healing corneal epithelial defect. This was successfully managed with total excisional biopsy of the lesion, combined with limbal stem cell autograft (from the fellow eye) and amniotic membrane transplantation. Histopathology revealed a conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma. The corneal epithelium completely healed postoperatively and there is no evidence of tumour recurrence at 1 year follow-up. This case highlights a rare case of advanced ocular surface neoplasia causing secondary limbal stem cell deficiency. Medical and surgical management of ocular surface neoplasia with limbal stem cell transplantation is effective in treating such cases.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207