MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917273340 · doi:10.1177/2050313x19829630

Invasive melanoma in a 5-year-old Canadian patient: A case report

2019· article· en· W2917273340 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanna Yuen, Fatmah Alzahrani, Garnet Horne, Karen Naert, Timothy H. McCalmont, Kathy Unger, Loretta Fiorillo

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsRed Deer Regional HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationMedicineMelanomaPathologyDifferential diagnosisHistopathologyDermatologyDermisImmunohistochemistryChromosomeBiologyCancer researchGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atypical Spitzoid lesions pose a distinct challenge in classification as they may comprise a mixture of both classic benign nevus and cutaneous melanoma characteristics. Immunostaining and molecular analysis, such as comparative genomic hybridization, can assist in narrowing the differential diagnosis. We present a case of a 5-year-old male with an atypical Spitzoid lesion on his back. Initial histopathology revealed a relatively symmetric lesion with mitotic figures and poor maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated a loss of p16, and array comparative genomic hybridization revealed a loss of chromosome 9, supporting a diagnosis of invasive melanoma arising in conjunction with a remnant of a conventional melanocytic nevus. This case is the first in Canada to demonstrate the use of array comparative genomic hybridization for diagnosing melanoma in a young paediatric patient.

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 score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207