MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220775315 · doi:10.3390/dj10030038

Investigation of the Molecular Profile of Granular Cell Tumours and Schwannomas of the Oral Cavity

2022· article· en· W4220775315 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Rogala, Zia A. Khan, Linda Jackson‐Boeters, Mark Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueDentistry Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTumors and Oncological Cases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
KeywordsPhenotypeImmunohistochemistryPathologyNeural crestCD68CD163SOX10SynaptophysinBiologyS100 proteinImmunophenotypingAntigenMedicineImmunologyCell biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granular cell tumours (GCTs) are rare submucosal lesions, thought to develop from Schwann cells, characterised by large polygonal cells with abundant lysosomes. The objectives of this study are to investigate whether GCTs have an antigen-presenting cell (APC) phenotype or a neural crest phenotype using immunohistochemistry and to compare expression profiles with Schwannomas. Immunoreactivity to CD68, HLA-DR, CD163, CD40 and CD11c (APC phenotype) and markers of neural crest cell (NCC) origin S100, SOX10, NSE and GAP43 in 23 cases of GCTs and 10 cases of Schwannomas were evaluated. RT-qPCR was used to identify a possible NCC developmental phenotype in 6 cases of GCTs. GAP43 was identified as a new NCC marker for GCTs, and some evidence was found for an APC phenotype from CD68 and HLA-DR immunoreactivity. RT-qPCR failed to identify an NCC developmental phenotype of GCTs, likely due to technical issues.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentistry JournalSame topicTumors and Oncological CasesFrench-language works237,207