Hiperplasia linfoide e linfoma do tipo malt da conjuntiva: aspectos clinicos e imunopatologicos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tecido linfoide associado a mucosa (MALT) e um acumulo adquirido de celulas linfoides no estroma conjuntival, sempre associado ao epitelio. Os tumores linfoides da conjuntiva devem ser classificados como hiperplasia linfoide ou linfomas, dependendo das caracteristicas histopatologicas do infiltrado linfoide. O objetivo desta tese e, pois, analisar as caracteristicas clinica: histopatologicas e imuno-histoquimicas que permitem o diagnostico correto de tumores linfoides da conjuntiva, assim como o prognostico dessas lesoes. Os 34 casos de lesoes linfoides conjuntivais examinados foram obtidos d Registro de Patologia Ocular da Universidade McGill, em Montreal - Canada. Foram analisados os aspectos clinicos referentes a idade, sexo, cor d lesao, localizacao, lateralidade e mobilidade, assim como o estadiamento n momento do diagnostico. Preparados histopatologicos fixados em formalina e embebidos em parafina foram corados para HE, PAS e marcadores de celulas B e T. Anticorpo monoclonais para as cadeias leves de imunoglobulina k e l, foram realizado para determinar a natureza poli ou monoclonal dos tumores linfoides. Quinze dos 34 casos de infiltrados linfoides da conjuntiva representaras linfomas do tipo MALT, enquanto 19 foram diagnosticados como hiperplasia linfoide conjuntival...(au)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".