MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967302769 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v81i2.1338

Usurpation d’identité clinique : Carcinome spinocellulaire de la paupière diagnostiqué antérieurement comme une bosse oculaire

2019· article· fr· W2967302769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanjeet Kaur Virk, April J. Stursma, Brian D. Fisher, Alexis Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Optometry · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les tumeurs malignes de la paupière sont souvent difficiles à diagnostiquer à un stade précoce et peuvent poser un défi sur le plan clinique. En raison de la prévalence élevée des cancers de la peau périoculaire, les cliniciens doivent être très attentifs dans leur évaluation des lésions cutanées. Un homme de 83 ans sans aucun antécédent de tumeur maligne présentait une lésion non cicatrisante et en croissance rapide de la paupière inférieure gauche. Après une référence en oculoplastique, on a diagnostiqué chez le patient un carcinome spinocellulaire sans métastase ni invasion des tissus de la couche profonde. La prise en charge a nécessité une exentération orbitaire gauche, suivie d’une radiothérapie. Ce cas illustre l’évolution clinique et la nature invasive du carcinome spinocellulaire périoculaire. Bien que ce carcinome puisse se présenter sous diverses formes, la plupart sont des lésions hyperkératosiques indolores qui évoluent et deviennent progressivement ulcéreuses. Il est essentiel d’avoir des antécédents détaillés et de procéder à un examen clinique minutieux pour détecter la malignité en temps opportun.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OptometrySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207