Dentigerous Cyst and Ameloblastoma of the Jaws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine how many ameloblastomas were misdiagnosed as dentigerous cysts (DCs) by correlating the radiological and histopathological features of a series of both entities. METHODS AND RESULTS: Histopathology reports and radiological imaging of 135 DCs and 43 ameloblastomas were reviewed. Any clinical or radiological feature that suggested that the diagnosis of DC was wrong-for example, absence of an unerupted tooth-prompted review of the original histology. A total of 34 cases coded as DC at diagnosis were excluded; in the remaining 101 patients, the clinicoradiological and histopathological features were consistent with DC in 96 (95.0%). Review of the histology revealed that 4 patients had actually had odontogenic keratocysts (OKCs) and one a luminal/simple unicystic ameloblastoma (UA). One other OKC and 3 other ameloblastomas (1 luminal UA, 2 solid/multicystic) had originally been diagnosed as DC; these had been identified prior to the study. Of the 9 misdiagnosed patients, 6 were ≤20 years old. Clinically, DC had been the only, or one of the differential, diagnoses in 7 patients; in the other 2, the clinical diagnosis was radicular cyst. In none of the 4 misdiagnosed ameloblastomas was the radiology compatible with a diagnosis of DC. Incorrect terminology had been used on the histopathology request form in 5 of the 34 excluded cases where the clinical diagnosis was DC, despite the cyst being periapical to an erupted carious or root-filled tooth. CONCLUSIONS: The entire clinical team must ensure that a histopathological diagnosis of DC is consistent with the clinicoradiological scenario, particularly in younger patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".