MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593443540 · doi:10.1159/000458413

Infiltrative Intraocular Conjunctival Squamous Cell Carcinoma after Local Resection and Brachytherapy: Clinical and Pathological Findings

2017· article· en· W2593443540 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Magnolia Trinidad Cano-Suárez, María Antonia Saornil-Álvarez, C. García-Álvarez, Francisco López-Lara, Jesús María de Frutos-Baraja, Elena García‐Lagarto

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Oncology and Pathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineScleraBrachytherapyPathologyPerforationSquamous metaplasiaBiopsyConjunctivaCorneaCarcinomaRadiation therapyOphthalmologySurgeryEpithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pseudophakic 70-year-old man presented to the clinic with a slow-growing conjunctival mass in the left eye. He was diagnosed with a conjunctival exophytic lesion suspicious of invasive conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Excisional biopsy showed a well-differentiated CSCC with positive margins and the patient underwent adjuvant brachytherapy. Six weeks later, examination of the anterior segment revealed cells in the anterior chamber and a neurotrophic corneal ulcer with corneal perforation. Considering the high suspicion of intraocular invasion of CSCC, the left eye was enucleated. Histopathologic findings showed scarring of the ciliary body with fibrosis temporally. Nasally, the sclera showed a lobular infiltration of well-differentiated squamous carcinoma. The central cornea exhibited a large ulcer with perforation and infiltrating squamous cells adhering to the posterior surface. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of an intraocular diffuse recurrence of CSCC after resection and adjuvant brachytherapy, with clinicopathologic correlation of radiation effects on the ocular tissues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcular Oncology and PathologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207