Composite Mantle Cell Lymphoma and “Gray Zone” Lymphoma in Two Different Anatomical Locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mantle cell lymphoma has been rarely found in composite form together with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphomas. A 69-year-old male patient presented with lumbal pain, cervical and axillary lymphadenopathy. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a tumor on T3/T4 extending to epidural region. Neurosurgical tumor excision was performed and the specimen along with a left axillary lymph node was sent for histologic examination, which showed infiltration of both specimens with neoplastic population, having morphologic and immunophenotypic characteristics of mantle cell lymphoma. Larger cells with morphological and immunohistochemical features of Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells were also apparent, distributed diffusely among neoplastic mantle cells. Polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed IGH monoclonality. On fluorescent in situ hybridization investigation, translocation t(11;14) was detected. The interesting of this case rests in the presence of double neoplastic population in two different anatomical locations. The question raising in similar cases is whether this coexistence is coincidental or it is due to a clonal relationship. B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and classical Hodgkin lymphoma can be found in any site. J Med Cases. 2014;5(4):241-244 doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.14740 / jmc1718w
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".