MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319000795 · doi:10.5430/jst.v6n2p17

Challenges and pitfalls in diagnosis of Parosteal Osteosarcoma: A clinicopathologic study of 23 cases

2016· article· en· W2319000795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Usman Tariq, Nasir Ud Din, Arsalan Ahmed, Shahid Pervez, Romana Idrees, Saira Fatima, Masood Umer, Naila Kayani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteosarcomaMedicineDifferential diagnosisSoft tissueRadiologyFemurPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Parosteal Osteosarcoma (PO) is an uncommon variant of osteosarcoma. Diagnosing PO is important due to itsmalignant nature but the diversity of histologic features makes it challenging by adding a number of soft tissue, bony andcartilaginous lesions into the list of differential diagnosis. Our aim was to study the clinicopathologic and histological features ofPO with emphasis on features helpful in its discrimination from other mimicking lesions. Methods: We reviewed 23 cases of PO diagnosed in our institution between January 2001 and August 2015. Results: Femur was the most commonly involved bone (68.2%) along with other long bones and rib in a single case. Soft tissuecomponent was graded as Grade1 in 9(39%), Grade2 in 8(34.7%) and Grade3 in 4(17.3%) cases. Bony component was seeneither in combination of or exclusively as parallel streams and interconnected trabeculae (mosaic-pattern). Out of 9 cases withcartilage component, 3 showed a cartilage cap. 2(8.6%) cases showed dedifferentiation into osteosarcoma. Conclusion: PO should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of every lesion arising from the bone surface.Knowledge of the variations in histologic features helps to reach the correct diagnosis which should never be made withoutradiological correlation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207