Application of derm dotting in oral and maxillofacial surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose : Derm dotting is a new method of marking skin biopsies, and it is used by dermatopathologists to identify most diagnostic tissues on a microscopic slide. This method uses nail varnish to mark specific lesions and suspected section planes, or to orient skin resections. The nail varnish is resistant to different tissue processes, discernible while cutting the tissue block, and easily recognizable under the microscope. We examined the effectiveness of derm dotting on intraoral tissues. Methods : We used the derm‐dotting technique on the intraoral tissues of nine patients who underwent resection of a squamous carcinoma. We also tested this method on frozen sections. Results : In all cases of resected tissue, the nail varnish was visible under gross examination, traceable while cutting the tissue block, and clearly visible in the definitive sections. The dots were preserved in the frozen sections, but they were lost in half of the decalcified tissues. Conclusions : Derm dotting is an inexpensive, simple method that can replace the stitching technique used by surgeons to orient specimens. The stitches have to be removed by the pathologist, therefore possibly creating an artifact in the biopsy. The varnish dots or lines can be used to orient the specimen. In addition, the dots can easily mark suspect borders or areas of interest to be examined by the pathologist, using different colors, if desired. With derm dotting, the pathologist receives a more representative slide enabling a more accurate clinicopathological correlation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".