MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cytomegalovirus: its potential role in the development of cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma

2009· letter· en· W2076806467 on OpenAlexaff
F. Ballanger, Céline Bressollette‐Bodin, Christelle Volteau, Lucie Planche, Brigitte Dréno

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Dermatology · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphomaCytomegalovirusCutaneous T-cell lymphomaVirologyMedicineImmunologyDermatologyHerpesviridaeCancer researchVirusMycosis fungoidesViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the potential role of CMV in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), we studied cytomegalovirus (CMV) seroprevalence in parapsoriasis (PP), mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS) compared with healthy control patients. In cases where CMV seropositivity was observed, CMV PCR analyses were performed on skin biopsies. CMV seroprevalence was 37.1% in the control group, 50.68% in the PP + MF + SS group (P = 0.08), 56.2% in the MF + SS group (P = 0.07), 40% in the PP group (P = 0.9), 66.67% in the MF group (P = 0.009), 42.86% in the SS group (P = 0.9). CMV PCR in initial skin biopsies were all negative. However, PCR CMV was positive in two SS skin biopsies realized at an advanced stage. Our results show that latent CMV infection may play a role in the susceptibility of MF in predisposed subjects by inducing T-cell proliferation and resistance to apoptosis. Concerning SS, an immunosuppressive state may be responsible for CMV reactivation that in turn may interfere with evolution of the disease.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental DermatologySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207