Cutaneous Solitary Neural Hamartoma: Report of an Unusual Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous hamartomas are tumor-like proliferations of tissue indigenous to the organ but arranged abnormally. There are examples in the literature of cutaneous hamartomas composed of a variety of different components. To our knowledge, there is no previous report of such cutaneous solitary neural hamartoma. Our case occurred in a 51-year-old man with pain and paresthesia in the right shoulder associated with a nodule that was surgically removed. There was no history of trauma, other skin nodules, neurofibromatosis, or tuberous sclerosis. Histologically, there was an unencapsulated nodule, composed of mature nerve bundles noted abnormally high within the papillary dermis, extending to the reticular dermis with periadnexal distribution. Immunohistochemically, the nerve bundles were positive for S-100, including the smaller nerve twigs, and the perineurium was highlighted by epithelial membrane antigen, reminiscent of normal peripheral nerves. Although, neural components including mature nerve bundles have been described in various cutaneous hamartomas, this represents a peculiar case of a cutaneous mature peripheral nerve hamartoma. Whether this is related to other entities of cutaneous hamartomas (ie, neurofollicular hamartoma, folliculosebaceous cystic hamartoma) is not yet apparent, although it is probably a unique entity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".