Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis in Children: Abdominal US Findings within 1 Week of Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ultrasonographic (US) findings at presentation in a series of children who received a diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) at a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All available results of imaging studies of children who received a diagnosis of HLH between January 1985 and June 2000 were retrieved. For nine patients, abdominal US images obtained within 1 week of presentation to the hospital were reviewed retrospectively by two radiologists who were aware of the diagnosis and of the original interpretation of each study. US images were examined for evidence of splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, ascites, gallbladder wall thickening, increased periportal echogenicity, lymphadenopathy, pleural effusion, and nephromegaly. Any other abnormalities were also recorded. Differences in interpretation were resolved by consensus. The patients ranged in age from 2 months to 4(1/2) years. The male-to-female ratio was 5:4. RESULTS: Findings at presentation included splenomegaly (in eight of the nine children), hepatomegaly (in seven children), ascites (in six children), gallbladder wall thickening (in six children), increased periportal echogenicity (in three children), lymphadenopathy (in three children), and pleural effusion (in two children). Miscellaneous findings in individual patients included coarse hepatic echotexture with a single 9-mm hypoechoic focus in the liver, multiple hypoechoic foci in the spleen, nephromegaly, gallstone, increased renal cortical echogenicity, and mural thickening of the duodenum. CONCLUSION: In the appropriate clinical setting, the differential diagnosis of a combination of hepatosplenomegaly, ascites, gallbladder wall thickening, increased periportal echogenicity, lymphadenopathy, and/or pleural effusion should include HLH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".