MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006522803 · doi:10.2310/7750.2008.08050

Juvenile-Onset Hypopigmented Mycosis Fungoides Mimicking Vitiligo

2009· article· en· W2006522803 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Ngo, Martin J. Trotter, Richard M. Haber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycosis fungoidesVitiligoMedicineDermatologyButtocksHypopigmentationAsymptomaticLymphomaPopulationJuvenilePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and typically affects older adults. It is estimated that less than 5% of MF cases are of juvenile onset. An uncommon hypopigmented variant of MF exists, which has been more commonly observed in dark-skinned individuals and predominantly in juvenile-onset cases. METHODS: We describe an 8-year-old otherwise healthy Hispanic male who, by 6 months of age, had developed asymptomatic hypopigmented patches on the lower legs, thighs, and buttocks, which have evolved over the past 7 years. This condition had previously been misdiagnosed as vitiligo. Recent immunohistologic and molecular biology studies are consistent with MF. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Given that hypopigmented MF is an uncommon condition, it may not be clinically suspected in the pediatric population. Histopathologic, immunophenotypic, and/or molecular biologic studies are sometimes equivocal, with findings similar to inflammatory dermatoses or autoimmune vitiligo, which may initially lead to a misdiagnosis, as in this patient's case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207