MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092568557 · doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2020-207051

Pitfalls in the diagnosis of lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma, facts and an opinion

2020· review· en· W3092568557 on OpenAlexaff
N Sina, Zaid Saeed-Kamil, Danny Ghazarian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLentigo maligna melanomaLentigo malignaDermatologyMedicineMelanomaPathologyField cancerizationHead and neckBasal cellSurgeryCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lentigo maligna/lentigo maligna melanoma (LM/LMM) affects chronically sun-damaged skin of the head and neck with a slow radial growth phase. It is characterised by predominantly lentiginous proliferation of small, but atypical melanocytes with occasional upward scatter in an atrophic epidermis. It is not uncommon for pathologists to receive partial or scouting biopsies to assess for LM. This makes the interpretation of symmetry and circumscription of the lesions challenging. Therefore, both cytologic and architectural criteria should be taken into consideration to render an accurate diagnosis of melanoma. Moreover, pathologists should be vigilant to avoid missing invasion, as this can change the treatment plan and prognosis. Herein, we aim to discuss important pitfalls in the diagnosis of LMM and its invasive component. Some of these caveats are differentiating between true invasion versus adnexal involvement by the in situ component or an incidental intradermal nevus, detection of microinvasion and multifocal invasion, and recognition of desmoplastic/spindle cell melanoma component.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207