The Fake Fat Phenomenon in Organizing Pleuritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report 9 patients with pleural biopsies referred because of concern about infiltration of what appeared to be chest wall fat by pan-keratin-positive spindled cells, a finding that led to a consideration of desmoplastic mesothelioma. All patients showed pleural effusions/pleural thickening on computed tomographic scan. Pleural biopsy showed a greatly thickened and fibrotic paucicellular pleura with circular fat-like spaces and, sometimes, adjacent oblate spaces mostly deep in the fibrotic area. Indistinct, keratin-positive, spindle cells arranged parallel to the pleural surface coursed between these fat-like spaces. S-100 stains were negative around the fat-like spaces. Vimentin stains showed that the spaces did not have a cellular lining of any kind. Sometimes the spaces contained faintly hematoxyphilic material that was Alcian blue positive, and similar material was seen in the fibrotic stroma. Follow-up with periods ranging from 6 to 30 months revealed that 8 cases had stable disease on chest imaging or by clinical findings. One case had slowly progressive pleural thickening. These observations suggest that spaces resembling fat may be encountered in fibrotic pleurae and that horizontally oriented keratin-positive spindled cells between the fat-like spaces deep in the fibrotic portion of a thickened pleura represent a benign finding seen in some cases of organizing pleuritis/fibrothorax. The spaces themselves are probably artifacts derived from the biopsy procedure and/or cutting artifacts. In contrast, in true desmoplastic mesotheliomas there is downward, rather than horizontal, growth of keratin-positive spindled cells running between clearly definable fat cells.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".