Ameloblastoma in the Hong Kong Chinese. Part 1: systematic review and clinical presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of Part 1 of this study was to determine the clinical presentation of central ameloblastomas in the Hong Kong Chinese and to compare them with other reported series by a systematic review (SR). METHODS: The study had two elements, that of a complete series of all ameloblastomas presenting at a major Chinese maxillofacial surgical unit as well as a SR. The files of the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University of Hong Kong between 1989 and 2000 were reviewed for ameloblastoma cases. The relevant literature was identified by electronic databases, review of citation lists and hand searching of key journals. The principal selection criterion was that the study should represent a complete collection of cases. RESULTS: Fifty-three published series of cases were included in the SR. They generally reported little more than sex, mean age and range, and affected jaw. Only 16 studies considered recurrence. Sixty-one cases of ameloblastoma were identified in the present study. There were 30 males and 31 females, contrary to the predilection for males in other reports. Eighty-four percent of cases were found in the mandible, agreeing with the SR. The mean age at first presentation was 30.5 years, lower than that of the SR; only a Korean report and a small Bangladeshi report showed younger presentation. The present report had the shortest period between first becoming aware of the lesion and seeking treatment; this period was significantly shorter for younger patients. Although the present study was in agreement with the SR with regard to swelling, this study reported a significantly higher proportion of patients presenting with pain. CONCLUSION: Although the presentation of ameloblastoma within this Chinese community was broadly similar to that observed in other populations, it differed in a number of important respects. It had a younger age at first presentation than many other communities, including other Orientals; it was associated with a shorter period between first becoming aware of the lesion and seeking treatment, particularly in the young; and it was more frequently associated with pain than in the SR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".