MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040593266 · doi:10.1159/000381421

Eccrine Angiomatous Hamartoma: A Clinicopathological Study of 26 Cases

2015· article· en· W2040593266 on OpenAlexaff
Tutyana Sanusi, Yanqiu Li, Lan Sun, Chunsen Wang, Youwen Zhou, Changzheng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSympathectomy and Hyperhidrosis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAdvanced Research Projects AgencyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineHyperhidrosisLesionHamartomaGastroenterologyDermatologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Eccrine angiomatous hamartoma (EAH) is a rare benign cutaneous tumor characterized by the proliferation of eccrine glands and capillaries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the clinicopathological characteristics of EAH. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients diagnosed with EAH from 1977 to 2012 in the Union Hospital, Wuhan, P.R. China, and the clinicopathological features were compared with the cases reported in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients with EAH were identified. The male:female ratio was 1.2:1. EAH most commonly presents as a solitary (80.8%) plaque (50.0%) on the lower extremities (61.5%). Most patients presented with hyperhidrosis localizing to the lesion. Although most patients did not have major pain or anatomic deformity, one patient had severe pain as well as difficulty walking and moving, necessitating leg amputation. The histopathological findings showed typical features of EAH. CONCLUSION: EAH is a rare but characteristically benign skin hamartomatous condition. In rare occasions it can be associated with severe structural and functional impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicSympathectomy and Hyperhidrosis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207