MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088031040 · doi:10.1177/2050313x20953114

An atypical presentation of extensive centrofacial microcystic adnexal carcinoma responding to radiation: A case report and review of the literature

2020· article· en· W3088031040 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey Hinther, Jihane Henni, Rachel Asiniwasis

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer and Skin Lesions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyHistopathologyBiopsyCarcinomaDermatologyMohs surgeryPresentation (obstetrics)Gold standard (test)SurgeryRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma is a rare cutaneous neoplasm believed to arise from pluripotent keratinocytes capable of adnexal differentiation. Due to its insidious growth and appearance, diagnosis is often delayed. A deep incisional or excisional biopsy for histopathology is the gold standard for diagnosis. Different treatment modalities have been described in the literature, including the Mohs micrographic surgery, standard excision, radiation, chemotherapy, and observation. Currently, Mohs remains the treatment of choice. We present a unique case of a 12-month history of an extensive progressive centrofacial cutaneous induration diagnosed as microcystic adnexal carcinoma in an 83-year-old female. Due to the extensive nature of the tumor, she received radiation therapy and continues to receive ongoing assessment with no evidence of clinical recurrence at 2-year post-treatment including negative scouting biopsies. To date, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for microcystic adnexal carcinoma.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 topicCancer and Skin LesionsFrench-language works237,207