Nevus Cells in Lymph Nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that collections of nevus cells can occur in the collagenous framework of lymph nodes excised for a variety of reasons. These can be difficult to distinguish from nodal deposits of metastatic cancer but attention to cytologic detail, the distribution of the cells, and their immunohistochemical profile usually lead to a satisfactory conclusion. From another perspective, the mechanism by which nevus cells are deposited in lymph nodes has been a source of interest and controversy. Theories in this regard include embolic transfer of cells from cutaneous nevi to corresponding regional nodes and an aberration in the embryologic migration of melanocytes in utero. There have been tentative indications in the literature of a potential link between the presence of nevus cells in lymph nodes and cutaneous nevi in corresponding catchment areas of skin. In the course of evaluating sentinel lymph nodes from patients with melanoma, we noted a significant association between the presence of nodal nevi and cutaneous nevi in corresponding regional zones of skin (Fischer's exact test, p = 0.021). The link with cutaneous nevi of congenital type was even stronger (Fischer's exact test, p = 0.008). This consolidates previous sporadic reports of such an association and through further scrutiny may help shed light on the mechanism by which nodal and congenital cutaneous nevi are linked.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".