Actinic Granuloma is a Unique and Distinct Entity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the initial description of actinic granuloma (AG), debate has continued over whether it should be considered a specific condition or simply granuloma annulare (GA) located in sun-exposed areas of skin. We conducted a case-control study to clarify this issue. Twenty cases given the diagnosis of AG between 1991 and 2001 were retrieved from our archives. We applied the following inclusion criteria: extensive loss of elastic tissue in or at the side of the granuloma, and elastophagocytosis. Sixteen cases of GA that involved sun-exposed and non-sun-exposed sites, 8 cases from each group, were randomly selected as controls. Histologic parameters were quantitated on hematoxylin-eosin, Verhoeff van Gieson, and Alcian blue stains for each case. Results were statistically analyzed by SPSS program version 9. Fourteen cases of AG met our inclusion criteria. Presence of mucin, occurrence of multinucleated giant cells, and the type of granulomata were of high statistical significance (p < 0.01) in distinguishing the two entities. We also found that the location of the granulomata in these conditions is different and of statistical significance (p < 0.05). Based on histomorphology, we believe that AG should be considered a separate, independent condition and should be distinguished from GA even in sun-exposed areas of skin.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".