Prospective Study of the Frequency of Hepatic Hemangiomas in Infants with Multiple Cutaneous Infantile Hemangiomas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it