Inflammatory pseudotumours of the oesophagus – histological and immunohistochemical findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Inflammatory oesophageal pseudotumours are rare lesions, thought to be reactive. Due to marked atypia of the stromal cells, these can be misdiagnosed as malignancies. The objective of this study was to characterize histological and immunohistochemical features of a series of inflammatory pseudotumours of the oesophagus. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present 12 cases of inflammatory oesophageal pseudotumours, occurring in seven females and five males, with a mean age of 57.3 years. Clinical presentations were variable; dysphagia, abdominal pain and weight loss and upper gastrointestinal bleed. In a majority of the cases, nodules or masses in the distal oesophagus were identified at endoscopy. Microscopically, the lamina propria in all 12 cases contained inflammation and granulation tissue. Ten of 12 cases showed mucosal ulceration and 11 of 12 cases had acutely inflamed epithelium. Markedly atypical pleomorphic stromal cells with prominent nucleoli were identified in all 12 cases. Immunohistochemistry showed uniform positivity for vimentin in 11 of 11 cases, and two of seven cases demonstrated weak focal positivity for smooth muscle actin. The cells were negative for all other markers. CONCLUSIONS: Reactive oesophageal lesions can show marked nuclear atypia in stromal fibroblasts/myofibroblasts, which are easily mistaken for malignancies. Pathologists must consider the diagnosis of an inflammatory pseudotumour if stromal atypia is present in an inflammatory background.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".