Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasizing to Oral Soft Tissues: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Renal cancer metastasis to oral region is very rare. Studies have been published analyzing the cases of metastatic tumors to the oral cavity by many researchers. Very few research studies have been conducted till date to analyze the renal cancer metastasis as the sole primary source to the oral soft tissues. The goal of this study was to examine the published cases of oral soft tissue metastasis from renal cell carcinoma as the only primary source from 1911 to 2022. Materials and Methods An electronic search of the published literature was performed without publication year limitation in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Science Direct, Embase, and Research Gate databases, using mesh keywords like (“Renal cancer,” or “Renal carcinoma” or “Renal cell cancer” or “Renal cell carcinoma”), and (“Metastasis” or “Metastases”), and (“Oral soft tissues” or “Tongue” or “Palate” or “Tonsil” or “Buccal mucosa” or “Salivary glands”). We also searched related journals manually and the reference lists. Results Our research revealed a total of 226 relevant articles with 250 patients. Parotid glands and tongue were the most common sites of metastasis. 23% patients died with a survival time of 10 days to 4 years. Conclusions Oral soft tissue metastasis from renal cell carcinoma has a bad prognosis. More cases need to be published in order to raise awareness of these lesions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".