MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009598657 · doi:10.1097/dad.0b013e3181c183f9

Keloidal and Other Collagen Patterns in Atypical Fibroxanthomas

2010· article· en· W2009598657 on OpenAlexafffund
Saul Offman, Sylvia Pasternak, Noreen M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsHistogenesisPathologyNeoplasmAtypical fibroxanthomaMedicineBiologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collagen deposition is observed in several cutaneous neoplasms and its derivation is variable. It can represent (1) a mesenchymal component of a biphasic tumor, (2) a desmoplastic host response to a neoplasm, or (3) a product of the tumor cells. The result is that collagenous (desmoplastic) variants of many cutaneous neoplasms are well recognized. In regard to atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), conventional wisdom holds that intratumoral collagen is not commonly observed, apart from the rare sclerotic subtype of the neoplasm. This has not been our experience. The relatively frequent observation of keloidal collagen in AFXs and the dearth of information in the literature about this phenomenon prompted us to investigate the matter. All cases of AFX diagnosed at our institution within a 10-year period (1999-2008) were reviewed. The group included 64 males and 27 females with a mean age of 75 years. The majority of the cases (92%) were located on the head or neck. The conventional pleomorphic subtype of the tumor was encountered most frequently (67%). In 17 of the 91 cases (19%), prominent intratumoral keloidal collagen was present. This morphological observation poses interesting questions: (1) Is the collagen part of a host response to the neoplasm or is it a product of the tumor cells? (2) If the latter, does it cast light on the controversial histogenesis of AFX? (3) Does it signify an involutional stage of the tumor and imply a favorable prognosis? (4) Is it related to the "sclerotic" variant of the tumor? We discuss the above quandaries and emphasize the need to register this variant of AFX amongst other morphological subtypes of the tumor. The goal is to facilitate accuracy in diagnosis and to promote further investigation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207