Prevalence of oesophageal epidermoid metaplasia in 1048 consecutive patients and 58 patients with squamous neoplasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Oesophageal epidermoid metaplasia is defined by a dense granular layer with overlying hyperorthokeratosis, resembling the epidermis of skin. A possible association between epidermoid metaplasia, squamous dysplasia and squamous cell carcinoma has been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of epidermoid metaplasia in patients with oesophageal squamous neoplasms with that in a control cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medical records and slides from 1048 consecutive oesophageal biopsies and resections for any indication and 58 patients with oesophageal squamous neoplasms were reviewed. Two cases (0.19%) of epidermoid metaplasia were identified in the 1048-patient control group. The prevalence of epidermoid metaplasia was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the 58 patients with oesophageal squamous neoplasms, two of whom (3.5%) had concurrent epidermoid metaplasia (odds ratio 18.1, 95% confidence interval 2.5-131). One case was associated with a verrucous carcinoma and the other with a well-differentiated, superficial (pT1), exophytic squamous cell carcinoma. No patients had epidermoid metaplasia in a biopsy prior to the diagnosis of squamous neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of epidermoid metaplasia observed in patients with squamous neoplasms provides some additional support for the proposed association. The hypothesis that epidermoid metaplasia is a precursor to squamous neoplasms remains unproven.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".