MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exclusive Involvement of Folliculosebaceous Units by Herpes

2005· article· en· W1997646718 on OpenAlexaff
Noreen M. Walsh, Robert G. Boutilier, Dan Glasgow, Michael Shaffelburg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCape Breton Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyHerpes simplex virusEpidermis (zoology)ZonaEpitheliumBiologyMedicineDermatologyVirusAnatomyVirologyViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The histopathological changes of herpes simplex, herpes zoster, and varicella are considered to be indistinguishable from one another. Evaluation of the clinical setting, with adjunctive studies if necessary, generally clarifies the specific diagnosis. Vesicular lesions in all three conditions can involve epidermal and adnexal epithelium with characteristic cytopathic features. We describe three patients with non-vesicular eruptions on the head and neck whose biopsies revealed exclusive folliculosebaceous involvement by herpes. All three patients developed typical herpes zoster within days of the biopsy. There is compelling scientific evidence in the literature indicating that, in herpes zoster, the virus is transported from dorsal root or trigeminal ganglia via myelinated nerves to the skin. These terminate at the isthmus of hair follicles and primary infection of follicular and sebaceous epithelium occurs. Spread of infection to the epidermis follows. In contrast, data pertaining to recurrent herpes simplex indicates that axonal transport of the virus from sensory ganglia to the skin is directed primarily to the epidermis, via terminal non-myelinated nerve twigs. The clinical evolution of our three cases and scientific data in the literature indicate that exclusive folliculosebaceous involvement by herpes, in the setting of a non-vesicular eruption, represents early herpes zoster.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207