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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".