MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192579701 · doi:10.1177/229255031402200301

A reliable frozen section technique for basal cell carcinomas of the head and neck

2014· article· en· W2192579701 on OpenAlexaff
Wisam Menesi, Edward W. Buchel, Thomas Je Hayakawa

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFrozen section procedureCryotherapyHead and neckSurgeryMohs surgeryBasal cell carcinomaNuclear medicineBasal cellPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) of the head and neck treated by conventional techniques of surgical excision, curettage, cryotherapy and radiation therapy have recurrence rates of up to 42%. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) decreases the recurrence rate but can be expensive, delay definitive reconstruction and is limited in its availability. The authors report a series of 50 patients with head and neck BCCs treated by a surgeon-directed 'en face' frozen section technique that immediately evaluates the entire peripheral and deep margins during BCC resection, and potentially offers a more efficient and equally effective alternative to MMS. Patient demographics, pathology results, operative time, technique and outcomes are all reported. With a mean follow-up of three years, there was only one recurrence (1.7%). Mean total operative time was 1 h 47 min. The authors conclude that this surgeon-directed 'en face' frozen section technique does not require any specialized training, enables more rapid and reliable results than standard frozen section techniques that are currently used, and provides outcomes equivalent to MMS in the surgical treatment of head and neck BCCs.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207