MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912106374 · doi:10.1177/1066896919827374

Verruciform Xanthoma of the Oral Mucosa: A Series of Eight Typical and Three Anomalous Cases

2019· article· en· W2912106374 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A.W. Barrett, Raghuram Boyapati, Brian S. Bisase, P. M. Norris, Michael Shelley, J. Collyer, K. Sneddon, Aakshay Gulati

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTumors and Oncological Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVictoria General Hospital Foundation
KeywordsXanthomaTongueLamina propriaMedicinePathologyHistiocyteLesionParakeratosisBasal cellDermatologyOral mucosaHyperkeratosisCD68ImmunohistochemistryEpithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this series, there are 8 typical verruciform xanthomas of the oral mucosa and 3 anomalies, 1 polypoid, 1 florid, and 1 carcinomatous. All were characterized by infiltrates of CD68-positive xanthomatous histiocytes in the lamina propria. The 11 patients comprised 6 men and 5 women (mean age = 54.5 years, range = 40-69). Both keratinized and nonkeratinized sites were affected. A history of lichenoid inflammation was recorded in 5 patients. The polypoid xanthoma presented in a woman aged 54 years as a polyp of the labial commissure. The florid lesion affected the dorsum of the tongue of a man aged 54 years and at 20 mm was the largest of the 11 lesions, but the only one with candidal infection. The squamous cell carcinoma manifested as a papilloverrucous hyperkeratosis of the palatal gingiva in a man aged 69 years. The latter 2 (and 1 "typical" verruciform xanthoma) required re-excision, but none has since recurred.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicTumors and Oncological CasesFrench-language works237,207