Intraepidermal neutrophils – a clue to dermatophytosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatophyte infections are occasionally diagnosed by histopathology. Spongiotic or psoriasiform features are typical but non-specific, and neutrophils may be present within the stratum corneum. Traditionally, this latter finding has been felt to be a diagnostic clue for dermatophytosis, and usually precipitates a periodic acid Schiff (PAS-D) stain to confirm the presence of hyphae in the stratum corneum. Our objective was to evaluate whether the presence of neutrophils within the stratum corneum is a sensitive or specific test for dermatophytosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study on 303 cases of spongiotic or psoriasiform dermatitides over a 35-month period. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and PAS-D stains were utilized to identify intraepidermal neutrophils and fungi. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing dermatophyte infection based upon neutrophils within the stratum corneum were 62 and 59%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values in our population were 4 and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The histologic feature of neutrophils within the stratum corneum is neither sensitive nor specific in the diagnosis of dermatophytosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".