MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401392089 · doi:10.1080/01676830.2024.2387094

Primary conjunctival basal cell carcinoma treated with plaque brachytherapy: a rare case report

2024· article· en· W4401392089 on OpenAlexaff
Adwaita Nag, Hatem Krema, Zaid Saeed Kamil, Beiki-Ardakani Akbar, Normand Laperrière

Bibliographic record

VenueOrbit · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachytherapyLesionScleraBasal cell carcinomaConjunctivaUltrasound biomicroscopyBiopsyBasal cellRadiologySurgeryRadiation therapyPathologyUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the conjunctiva is a rare tumor with only six cases reported in literature. We present the case of an 81-year-old male complaining of a slow-growing lesion in his right eye for the past 3 years. The lesion in the temporal bulbar conjunctiva was gelatinous and firmly adherent to sclera. Ultrasound biomicroscopy revealed apparent scleral thinning without invasion. Our provisional diagnosis was ocular surface squamous neoplasia; however, incisional biopsy for histopathological diagnosis revealed that it was a BCC. Due to scleral adhesion and thinning, the lesion was not amenable for surgical resection. Plaque brachytherapy was used to successfully treat the lesion. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of brachytherapy administration for treatment of this rare cancer. Previously reported cases were all nodular or pedunculated and treated with surgical excision. For flat, adherent, or invasive lesions, plaque brachytherapy is an effective primary treatment modality.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrbitSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207