Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, there has been much debate on the nature of infantile hemangiomas as either congenital malformations or benign neoplasms. Some vascular lesions that are present at birth and evidence no proliferative growth are considered to be congenital malformations; other post-natal vascular tumors pursue aggressive and possibly lethal clinical courses. The literature of the last two decades has been reviewed with a hope of clarifying the pathogenesis and underlying molecular lesions of this diverse set of lesions. Genetic investigations of two diseases associated with vascular tumors and abnormalities, von Hippel-Lindau disease, and Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia have greatly added to our knowledge of vascular proliferation and provided a tantalizing clue to the pathogenesis of hemangioblastomas. Mutations have also been described in infantile hemangiomas. All of the entities considered, vascular neoplasms as well as malformations, have been examined for the expression of vascular growth factors, their receptors, and factors that appear to promote cell proliferation. Similarly, factors that either block or promote apoptosis have also been examined in various vascular lesions. These studies have in large confirmed our expectations about proliferating tumors that show upregulation of growth promoting factors and inhibition of those that promote apoptosis. In conclusion, although much has been learned about vascular physiology and the control of endothelial proliferation, and while understanding about the molecular pathogenesis of the two inherited diseases mentioned above is detailed but not yet complete, understanding of the pathogenesis of benign and malignant endothelial tumors remains vague.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".