The Histologic Differences Between Neurofibromas in Patients With Neurofibromatosis, Type I and Sporadic Neurofibromas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurofibromatosis is associated with cutaneous melanin pigmentation, but an association with ordinary melanocytic nevi has not been described. This retrospective case‐control study was designed to see if neurofibromas in patients with Neurofibromatosis, Type I (NF‐1) differ from sporadic neurofibromas (SN) in their incidence of associated melanocytic nevi and other histologic features. Slides from 114 NF‐1 were compared with 112 SN. Lentiginous melanocytic nevi were identified over 13 NF‐1 (11%) but no SN (p = 0.00019, Fisher’s test). Compared with other NF‐1, NF‐1 with nevi were more frequently associated with melanocytic hyperplasia, honeycomb infiltration of the subcutis (p < 0.03, Fisher’s test), and a greater number of biopsies (p = 0.04, t‐test). Compared with SN, NF‐1 were more frequently associated with melanocytic hyperplasia, lentigo simplex‐like changes, honeycomb infiltration of the subcutis (p < 0.001, Chi squared test), plexiform neurofibroma and epidermolytic hyperkeratosis (p < 0.03, Fisher’s test). SN more frequently presented as a polyp or papule (p < 0.009). Sebaceous hyperplasia (present in 14% of cases), dermal elastosis (9%), lipomatous neurofibroma (8%), epithelial cysts (4%), and keratin granulomas or folliculitis (3%) were equally common in NF‐1 and SN. This study suggests that there may be a fundamental difference in the potential for melanocytic proliferation in NF‐1 compared with SN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".