Pemphigus herpetiformis: a case series and review of the literature
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
BACKGROUND: Pemphigus herpetiformis (PH) is a rare subtype of pemphigus that presents challenges in diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To review the presentation, diagnosis, and management of PH. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients diagnosed and treated for PH in an immunobullous referral center between September 2007 and June 2013. RESULTS: Eight patients were identified with a diagnosis of PH. All presented initially with pruritus. Clinical disease was manifest as either urticated erythematous plaques or a vesiculobullous eruption. Histological evaluation demonstrated eosinophilic spongiosis in all patients with acantholysis in half of cases (n = 4/8). Peripheral eosinophilia was noted in three of eight (37.5%) patients. In all cases, direct immunofluorescence showed intercellular deposition of immunoglobulin G in the epidermis. All patients required high-dose corticosteroid initially. All patients treated with dapsone or sulfasalazine (n = 4) achieved at least partial control. Other effective treatments included intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 2), azathioprine (n = 2), and leflunomide (n = 1). Rituximab was ineffective in two patients. CONCLUSION: The clinical and histological features of PH develop over time and with treatment, making distinction between pemphigus subtypes challenging and delay in diagnosis common. Diagnosis of PH requires a high index of suspicion and is made on clinical grounds (urticated erythema) in the context of compatible histology and immunofluorescence findings. Treatment may be challenging, although efficacy of sulfonamide derivatives appears to offer a therapeutic effect.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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