MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021055899 · doi:10.1177/2050313x20919602

Basal cell carcinoma stroma as a mimicker of lymphatic invasion: A case report

2020· article· en· W3021055899 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Caruana, Meggie Morand, Annie Bélisle, Mélissa Nantel-Battista

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyLymphatic systemBasal cell carcinomaStromaLymphatic EndotheliumMedicineDermisImmunohistochemistryCarcinomaLymphovascular invasionMetastasisBasal cellCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basal cell carcinoma metastases are rare. We report a case of an 83 year-old male with recurrent cutaneous infiltrative basal cell carcinoma on the right vertex with tumor aggregates of infiltrative basal cell carcinoma in the lymphatic vessels of the superficial dermis strongly suspected on pathology slide evaluation during Mohs micrographic surgery. D2-40 immunohistochemical stain allows the detection of lymphatic invasion by highlighting endothelial cells. Further histologic review and D2-40 stains performed on the paraffin-embedded sections did not reveal an endothelial cell lining in favor of lymphatic invasion. What was identified as lymphatic invasion was the result of a peculiar basal cell carcinoma stroma. Correct identification of basal cell carcinoma stroma as a mimicker of lymphatic invasion would prevent potentially invasive investigation as well as associated costs. This is of great importance as the prognostic and therapeutic implications can be of significant value for the 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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207