MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135309412

Basement membrane degeneration is common in lichenoid mucositis with dysplasia.

2021· article· en· W3135309412 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Lin, Denise M. Laronde, Lewei Zhang, Miriam P. Rosin, Ilena Yim, Leigha D. Rock

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlVancouver General HospitalSimon Fraser UniversityBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucositisMedicineDysplasiaEpithelial dysplasiaCancerPathologyMalignant transformationBasement membraneBasal cellDegeneration (medical)DermatologyInternal medicineChemotherapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: ), and to compare the proportion of malignant progression in these groups. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of lichenoid mucositis with low-grade (mild/moderate) oral epithelial dysplasia, no history of head and neck cancer, and who had at least 5 years of follow-up were eligible to participate in this nested case-control study. Cases (n = 10) were defined as lesions that progressed to severe dysplasia, carcinoma in situ or squamous cell carcinoma; controls (n = 32) were defined as those that did not progress. Immunohistochemistry was performed to assess for basement membrane (BM) degeneration using collagen IV-an integral BM protein. Results: = 0.69). Conclusion: BM degeneration is frequently seen in LM with dysplasia and alone does not appear to be a predictor of malignant progression in lesions with both lichenoid and low-grade dysplastic features. Dysplasia should not be discounted in the presence of LM. Lesions that display any degree of dysplasia warrant clinical follow-up and continued monitoring.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207