MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994672356 · doi:10.1111/his.13989

Vulval squamous cell carcinoma and its precursors

2019· review· en· W2994672356 on OpenAlexaff
Naveena Singh, C. Blake Gilks

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvar intraepithelial neoplasiaSquamous intraepithelial lesionPathologyVulvaIntraepithelial neoplasiaLesionCarcinoma in situMedicineLichen sclerosusCervixCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaCarcinomaDermatologyCancerInternal medicineCervical cancerProstate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vulval squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) can arise through two distinct pathways [human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated and HPV-independent], and these VSCC variants are recognised as different disease entities on the basis of different aetiologies, morphological features, molecular events during oncogenesis, precursor lesions, prognosis, and response to treatment. The precursor of HPV-associated VSCC, variously referred to as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) [vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) 2/3] or usual-type VIN, is morphologically identical to the more common HSIL (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3) of the cervix. The precursor lesions of HPV-independent VSCC include differentiated VIN, differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesion, and vulvar acanthosis with altered differentiation; these have been under-recognised by pathologists in the past, leading to delays in treatment. This review will discuss the recent advances in diagnostic surgical pathology of VSCC and its precursors, and how these diagnoses can impact on patient management.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations105
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207