MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233513584 · doi:10.2310/7070.2005.03131

Laryngeal Amyloidosis

2005· article· en· W4233513584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ravichand Siddachari, Devendra Chaukar, C.S. Pramesh, Kikkeri N. Naresh, Chris E. de Souza, Anil D′Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmyloidosisLesionAmyloid (mycology)LarynxBiopsyPathologyCarbon dioxide laserAirwayHistopathologySurgeryRadiologyLaser surgeryLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Localized amyloidosis is characterized by the deposition of amyloid fibres in a particular site or organ system in the absence of systemic involvement. Patients with localized laryngeal amyloidosis usually present with long-standing hoarseness or dyspnea. The diagnosis is made by a high degree of suspicion on the basis of the history and a characteristic appearance on direct laryngoscopic examination. When such lesions are seen, an adequate deep punch biopsy should be obtained, and an experienced pathologist should be able to identify the lesion on routine staining. However, the slides should be stained with Congo red and examined with polarized light microscopy to establish the diagnosis. Following proper diagnosis and evaluation of the extent of disease, usually by computed tomographic scan, surgery is the treatment of choice. Preservation of the voice and airway should be the aim in all patients. Endoscopic carbon-dioxide laser excision of the mass should be the first line of therapy. Patients may require repeated removal of the amyloid deposits. The results of treatment are excellent.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, OutcomesFrench-language works237,207