MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109047517 · doi:10.1259/dmfr/30802198

Keratocystic odontogenic tumour in a Hong Kong community: the clinical and radiological features

2010· article· en· W2109047517 on OpenAlexaff
D S MacDonald-Jankowski, T. K. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueDentomaxillofacial Radiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersUniversity of Hong KongRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow
KeywordsMaxillaMedicineRadiological weaponDentistryMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Keratocystic Odontogenic TumorRadiographyPresentation (obstetrics)LesionOdontogenicOrthodonticsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and conventional radiological features of a consecutive series of cases of "keratocystic odontogenic tumour" (KCOT) affecting a Hong Kong Chinese community and to determine their outcome by follow-up. METHODS: All cases were accompanied by appropriate radiography and were histopathologically confirmed. RESULTS: 33 consecutive KCOTs were reviewed. 18 patients were male. The mean age at first presentation was 30.6 years. Swelling was the most frequent presenting symptom. Those patients first presenting with pain were significantly older, whereas those first presenting with a maxillary lesion were significantly younger. The maxilla and mandible were affected in 13 and 20 cases, respectively. KCOTs were most frequently confined to the posterior sextants of both jaws. KCOTs affecting the maxilla were mainly unilocular, whereas those affecting the mandible were multilocular. Patients with multilocular KCOTs were significantly older. Patients with KCOTs associated with root resorption were significantly older, whereas patients associated with unerupted teeth were significantly younger. 69% displaced teeth, 41% resorbed them and 56% were associated with unerupted teeth. All but two were followed up for at least 2 years. Three lesions recurred. CONCLUSIONS: KCOTs in this community displayed some differences from those reported 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentomaxillofacial RadiologySame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207