Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of the review were to evaluate the principal clinical and conventional radiographic features of orthokeratinized odontogenic cyst (OOC) by systematic review (SR), and to compare the frequency of OOC between four global groups. METHODS: The databases searched were the PubMed interface of MEDLINE and LILACS. Only those reports of OOCs that occurred in a consecutive series of OOCs in the reporting authors' caseload were considered. RESULTS: 37 reports on 36 case series were included in the SR. OOC affected males twice as frequently and the mandible almost 2.5 times as frequently. Although the mean age at first presentation was 35 years, the largest proportion of cases first presented in the third decade for the Western, East Asian and Latin American global groups. Seven reports included details of at least one clinical finding. 11 reported case series included at least 1 radiological feature. All OOCs were radiolucent, 93% were unilocular and 68% were associated with unerupted teeth. 28% of the reported case series included follow up. 4% of OCC recurred and all of these were in the Western global group. CONCLUSIONS: Although one feature of OOCs is that they are unlikely to recur, some do. Not only is there a lack of long-term follow up of large series with long-term outcomes of OOC, but there is a paucity of clinical and radiological details of OOC at initial presentation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".