Odontogenic keratocyst in geriatric population: a developmental cyst in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) was rarely reported in geriatric population.To the best of our knowledge, only 15 cystic cases, of which one radiograph was documented, and eight solid OKCs were reported in geriatric patients.Objectives: This study investigated the difference between the histological and immuno-histochemical profile of juvenile and geriatric cases of sporadic OKC. Material and methods:In this retrospective study, a control group of 15 sporadic juvenile OKCs (group 1), 15 juvenile syndromic OKCs (group 2), and 15 juvenile recurrent OKCs (group 3) patients were included and clinicopathologically compared with newly reported cases.Group 4 was composed of three geriatric cases only.Paraffin wax blocks were sectioned to be stained with anti-NPM1/ALK (Abcam), anti-CK7, anti-CK14, anti-Ki-67, anti-SOX-10, and anti-Cyclin D1 in all groups.One-way ANOVA test was used to compare the studied groups.Results: The difference between immuno-staining for anti-NPM1/ALK, anti-CK7, anti-CK14, anti-Ki-67, anti-SOX-10, and anti-Cyclin D1 was not statistically significant.Therefore, the nature of OKC in the geriatric population did not differ from that of the younger population, posing strong controversy about classifying OKCs as only developmental lesions.Conclusions: True sporadic odontogenic keratocyst can affect geriatric populations, which defies the general theoretical consensus about the developmental origin of sporadic OKCs.This is complicated by the fact that the proliferation index is high in geriatric and juvenile populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".