MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911271400 · doi:10.1111/joa.12936

The macroscopic and histomorphological properties of periosteal rib lesions and its relation with disease duration: evidence from the Luis Lopes Skeletal Collection (Lisbon, Portugal)

2019· article· en· W2911271400 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Assis, Anne Keenleyside

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersUniversidade de Lisboa
KeywordsLOPESMedicineRelation (database)Duration (music)AnatomyPathologyComputer scienceArtData miningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periosteal new bone formation (PNBF) is a common finding in a large spectrum of diseases. In clinical practice, the morphology and location of periosteal lesions are frequently used to assist in the differential diagnosis of distinct bone conditions. Less commonly reported is the presence of PNBF on the ribs. This contrasts with the data retrieved from the study of skeletonized human remains that shows a high frequency of cases and a strong, albeit not specific, association between periosteal rib lesions and pulmonary conditions (e.g. tuberculosis). Despite that, an overall disagreement regarding the specificity and non-specificity of periosteal reactions exists in the study of dry bone remains. The insufficient number of clinical models exploring the morphology and the pathophysiology of PNBF's and the lack of systematic studies of pathological samples with a known diagnosis are claimed as major reasons for the disagreements. This study aimed to describe and compare the macroscopic and the histomorphologic appearance of periosteal rib lesions and to discuss their usefulness as diagnostic indicators. To pursue this goal, an assemblage of 13 rib samples (males = 11, females = 2, mean age-at-death = 36.6 years old) was collected from the Luis Lopes Skeletal Collection (Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal). The assemblage belongs to individuals who died from pulmonary-TB (group 1), non-TB pulmonary infections (group 2) and other conditions (group 3). Prior to sample preparation, the ribs were visually inspected and the PNBF described according to its thickness, the degree of cortical integration and the type of new bone formed (e.g. woven, lamellar or both). After sampling, each bone sample was prepared for histological analysis under plane and polarized light microscopy. Macroscopically, the results showed no differences in the new bone composition between cause-of-death groups. Only slight differences in the degree of cortical integration, which was most frequently classified as mild to high in the pulmonary-TB group, were observed. Histologically, no distinguishing features were identified by pathological group. However, new bone microarchitectures were observed compatible with (1) acute, fast-growing processes (e.g. spiculated reactions), (2) long-standing processes with a rapid bone formation (e.g. appositional layering of bone) and/or (3) chronic, slow-growing processes (e.g. layers of compact lamellae). To some extent, these distinct rates of disease progression resonate with the cause-of-death listed for some individuals. Despite the small sample size, the results of this investigation are in agreement with previous studies, according to which the macroscopic and histological appearance of periosteal formations are not specific for a particular pathological conditions. Nevertheless, the results support the conclusion that the morphology of periosteal lesions is a good biological indicator for inferring the rate of progression and duration of pathological processes. This study provides important reference data regarding the histomorphology of periosteal lesions that can be used for comparative purposes, as well as to narrow down the differential diagnosis in unidentified skeletal remains.

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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207