MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Viability of Whole Tissue Microbiopsy (WTM) for the Study and Management of Oral Leukoplakia

2016· article· en· W2554237957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio Carrera Torres, Ángel Martínez-Sahuquillo Márquez, Isabel Gallardo, M.J. Cobos Fuentes, J. R. Armas Padrón

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeukoplakiaBiopsyTissue sampleDysplasiaOral leukoplakiaLesionRadiologyCancerSurgeryPathologyBiomedical engineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Leukoplakia is the most frequent potentially malignant disorder. Management and diagnosis requires clinical and histopathogical monitorization. Conventional biopsy generates patient morbidity and is considered a complex procedure for general dentists, which can delay initial diagnosis. To solve these problems, we have proposed a novel procedure denominated Whole Tissue Microbiopsy (WTM). The aim of this study is to evaluate the samples obtained with the WTM procedure and to test their viability; to check if they are applicable in all anatomic locations and compare the results with those obtained with conventional biopsy. Methods: We studied 41 clinically compatible lesions with oral leukoplakia. A tissue sample was taken using the WTM technique, after which, a conventional biopsy was performed on the same location. Both samples were studied and compared in terms of viability and concordance. Results: 100% of the samples obtained using the WTM procedure were viable. 95% of the samples were useful to detect dysplasia, and in 85% of cases the basal membrane was retained. Coincidence with conventional biopsy as to detect cancer-dysplasia was 78% and showed a 53.8% sensitivity regarding the detection of dysplasia-Cancer. Discussion and Conclusion: The samples obtained by the WTM are viable for study. Conservation of all epithelial layers in the sample and the basement membrane in particular is not influenced by the anatomical area or by the clinical appearance of the lesion. The results that did not coincide with the conventional biopsy were due to the difference in size and not the quality of it.

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)0.000
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 score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207