Prospective Study of the Frequency of Hepatic Hemangiomas in Infants with Multiple Cutaneous Infantile Hemangiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple cutaneous infantile hemangiomas have been associated with hepatic hemangiomas. Screening of infants with five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas with abdominal ultrasound is often recommended. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency with which hepatic hemangiomas occur in infants with five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas compared to those with one to four cutaneous infantile hemangiomas and to characterize the clinical features of these hepatic hemangiomas. A multicenter prospective study of children with cutaneous infantile hemangiomas was conducted at pediatric dermatology clinics at Hemangioma Investigator Groups sites in the United States, Canada, and Spain between October 2005 and December 2008. Data were collected, and abdominal ultrasonography was performed on infants younger than 6 months old with five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas and those with one to four cutaneous infantile hemangiomas. Twenty-four (16%) of the 151 infants with five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas had hepatic hemangiomas identified on abdominal ultrasound, versus none of the infants with fewer than five (p = 0.003). Two of the 24 infants with hepatic hemangiomas received treatment specifically for their hepatic hemangiomas. Infants with five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas have a statistically significantly greater frequency of hepatic hemangiomas than those with fewer than 5. These findings support the recommendation of five or more cutaneous infantile hemangiomas as a threshold for screening infants younger than 6 months old for hepatic hemangiomas but also demonstrate that the large majority of these infants with hepatic hemangiomas do not require treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".