MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404146323 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2024.10.013

Primary orbital mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic prediction

2024· article· en· W4404146323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. Zhang, Huijing Ye, Wei Xiao, Huasheng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou Science and Technology Program key projectsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMesenchymal chondrosarcomaChondrosarcomaPrimary (astronomy)MedicinePathologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the clinicopathological characteristics of a rare malignant tumour, primary orbital mesenchymal chondrosarcoma (MCS), and identify the risk factors influencing its prognosis. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with histologically confirmed primary orbital MCS were enrolled between April 2013 and October 2022. The relationships between clinicopathological features and outcomes, including recurrence and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 9 patients (60%) experienced disease relapse, and 7 patients (46.7%) succumbed to the disease. Immunohistochemical analysis showed positive rates for SMA, CD-99, S-100, vimentin, and Bcl-2 at 60%, 60%, 53.3%, 100%, and 93.3%, respectively. The Ki67 index was positively associated with the recurrence and mortality rates. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that the Ki67 index could be a vital prognostic factor for MCS. Further follow-up studies are required to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in improving patient outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OphthalmologySame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207