MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033465868 · doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e328224b7c3

Pediatric pityriasis lichenoides and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma

2007· review· en· W2033465868 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Lam, Elena Pope

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaDermatologyCutaneous lymphomaCutaneous T-cell lymphomaDiseaseMycosis fungoidesLymphoproliferative disordersPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to educate the reader about two cutaneous lymphoproliferative diseases in childhood: pityriasis lichenoides and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Pityriasis lichenoides has traditionally been divided into acute and chronic subtypes. The two forms of the disease, however, are best thought of as two ends of a benign lymphoproliferative spectrum. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is a rare but underrecognized cutaneous malignancy in children. Early stage disease and hypopigmented presentation are characteristic of pediatric cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. The optimal investigation and treatment plans are still controversial. RECENT FINDINGS: This article will summarize recent articles on pityriasis lichenoides and pediatric cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, including recent findings from an international registry of pediatric cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. SUMMARY: After reading this review, the reader should be able to recognize the clinical presentation of pityriasis lichenoides, to understand the overlap between its acute and chronic forms, and to recognize its relationship with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In addition, the reader will appreciate the challenges in diagnosing and treating pediatric cutaneous T-cell 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207