Heavy multinodular cutaneous lymphoid infiltrates: clinicopathologic features and B‐cell clonality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Criteria for distinguishing between cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (CLH) and low-grade B-cell lymphoma are not well defined. We examined the hypothesis that the presence of a clonal B-cell population in heavy multinodular lymphoid infiltrates correlates with clinical presentation and outcome. METHODS: We identified 29 patients with skin lesions characterized histologically by a heavy dermal lymphocytic infiltrate with a multinodular architecture and extension into deep dermis and subcutaneous fat. Clonality was assessed immunophenotypically by light-chain restriction and also by analysis for IgH-gene rearrangement using PCR on DNA extracted from paraffin blocks. RESULTS: Follow-up (mean 80 months; median 45 months) was obtained in all patients. Twenty-four patients (83%) presented with a solitary lesion: only four had solitary recurrences, and none developed multiple synchronous lesions or systemic B-cell lymphoma. However, 9/24 of these solitary lesions (38%) were clonal by light-chain restriction or IgH PCR; 5/29 patients (17%) presented with multiple recurrent lesions and continued to develop lesions during the period of follow-up; 3/5 patients (60%) with multiple lesions demonstrated a B-cell clone. No patient developed systemic B-cell lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy, multinodular cutaneous lymphoid infiltrates have an excellent prognosis. Multiple lesions at presentation are the best predictor of recurrent multiple lesions confined to the skin. The presence of a clonal B-cell population does not correlate with clinical presentation or histology, nor does it predict development of further lesions or systemic 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".