Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Histological diagnostic criteria are used for the assessment of the degree of dysplasia and hence the risk of cancer progression for premalignant lesions. Clonal changes in the form of hyperorthokeratosis and hyperchromasia that are sharply demarcated from adjacent areas are not currently part of the criterion for dysplasia diagnosis. The objective of this study was to determine whether such clonal change should be regarded as a diagnostic feature for dysplasia. The following histological conditions were used to define such change: (1) hyperorthokeratosis; (2) hyperchromatism but no other features of dysplasia; (3) sharp margin demarcation from adjacent area by both the hyperorthokeratosis and hyperchromasia (clonal change), and (4) no prominent rete ridges, marked acanthosis or heavy inflammation. Lesions fitting these criteria were termed orthokeratotic lesions with no dysplasia. Methods: Patients from a population-based longitudinal study with more than 10 years of follow up were analyzed. Of the 214 patients with primary oral premalignant lesions, 194 had mild or moderate dysplasia (dysplasia group) and 20 fit the criteria for orthokeratotic lesions without dysplasia (orthokeratotic with no dysplasia group). The two groups were compared for their cancer risks using clinical (site and toluidine blue), histological (nuclear phenotype score), and molecular criteria (loss of heterozygosity) and by outcome (progression). Results and conclusions: The lesions from orthokeratotic with no dysplasia group showed a similar cancer risk (clinical, histological and molecular risk) and time to progression as the dysplastic lesions. We recommend that the clonal change should be included as a criterion for dysplasia diagnosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".