Endoscopic diagnosis of melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Although skin melanoma is a tumour which can be localised visually, its current diagnosis remains unsatisfactory. Skin melanoma exhibits an extremely diverse clinical presentation and a highly variable progression of the neoplastic process.Aim. To analyze our experience in diagnosing metastatic melanoma of the gastrointestinal tract.Materials and methods. The paper presents data from endoscopic and morphological studies of 29 patients who were diagnosed with metastatic melanoma with lesions of the gastrointestinal tract at the Department of Endoscopy the N. Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology.Results. Among the patients there were 12 (41.3 %) men and 17 (58.6 %) women, whose average age was 50 and 53 years, respectively, the majority of metastatic lesions of the gastrointestinal tract were asymptomatic, only 4 (13.8 %) patients had the disease accompanied by complaints such as difficulty passing food, in 2 cases (6.9 %) episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding were detected. In 7 (24.1 %) cases, the source of metastasis was not identified. The features of the manifestation of metastatic melanomas include the frequently combined lesions of the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum. In rare cases, there is a combination of pigmented and pigmented forms of melanoma.Conclusion. Given the high potential for regional metastasis, the ability of melanoma to disseminate through the skin, the occurrence of multiple metastases even in the absence of local growth, and its often asymptomatic progression in gastrointestinal organs, the diagnostic protocol should encompass the full spectrum of endoscopic techniques. This includes esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, utilizing advanced methods such as narrow-band imaging, magnification, or a combination of both. Biopsy samples should be taken for morphological, cytological, and immunological analysis. Additionally, comprehensive diagnostic methods such as immunoscopy should be employed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".