Cutaneous Lymphoid Hyperplasia and Other Lymphoid Infiltrates of the Breast Nipple
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study characterizes the clinicopathological spectrum of lymphoproliferations involving the breast nipple and/or areola. Morphologic, immunohistochemical, molecular-genetic, and clinical features of 58 specimens from 56 patients were analyzed. They were re-diagnosed as cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (CLH, n = 44); other benign lymphoid infiltrates (OBLI, n = 8); peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (n = 1); cases with overlapping features of CLH and B-cell lymphoma (n = 3), one of them composed of spindle cells. Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia infiltrates were dense, composed mainly of B cells forming follicles with germinal centers (GC). Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia frequently showed features suggesting a malignancy as coalescing follicles with non-polarized germinal centers lacking mantle zones, and smudged infiltrates of lymphoid cells spreading into collagen (often as "Indian files"), smooth muscle, vessel walls, and nerve sheaths. Only two cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasias recurred; otherwise all patients are without disease (mean follow-up 62 months). Monoclonal rearrangement of immunoglobulin heavy chain gene was detected in five, and of T-cell receptor gamma gene in two cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasias using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), but the patients fared well too. In 47% of cases Borrelia burgdorferi was detected by polymerase chain reaction and/or serology, of which one was monoclonal. We conclude that cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia is the most common lymphoproliferation of the breast nipple, rarely recognized clinically, and often overdiagnosed histologically as lymphoma.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Case report | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it