MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165257460 · doi:10.1148/rg.2021200187

Practical Approach to Radiopaque Jaw Lesions

2021· article· en· W3165257460 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth R. Holmes, R. Davis Holmes, Montgomery Martin, Nicolas Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDifferential diagnosisRadiologyLesionRadiographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiopaque lesions of the jaw are myriad in type and occasionally protean in appearance. In turn, the radiologic analysis of these lesions requires a systematic approach and a broad consideration of clinical and imaging characteristics to enable reliable radiologic diagnosis. Initially categorizing lesions by attenuation pattern provides a practical framework for organizing radiopaque jaw lesions that also reflects important tissue characteristics. Specifically, the appearance of radiopaque lesions can be described as (a) densely sclerotic, (b) ground glass, or (c) mixed lytic-sclerotic, with each category representing a distinct although occasionally overlapping differential diagnosis. After characterizing attenuation pattern, the appreciation of other radiologic features, such as margin characteristics or relationship to teeth, as well as clinical features including demographics and symptoms, can aid in further narrowing the differential diagnosis and lend confidence to clinical decision making. The authors review the potential causes of a radiopaque jaw lesion, including pertinent clinical and radiologic features, and outline a simplified approach to its radiologic diagnosis, with a focus on cross-sectional CT. An invited commentary by Buch is available online. ©RSNA, 2021

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.039

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207