MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132821700 · doi:10.1002/pbc.24234

Progressive transformation of germinal centers in children and adolescents: An intriguing cause of lymphadenopathy

2012· article· en· W2132821700 on OpenAlexafffund
Furqan Shaikh, Bo‐Yee Ngan, Sarah Alexander, Ronald Grant

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersPediatric Oncology Group of Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGerminal centerBiopsyIncidence (geometry)DermatologyPathologyB cellAntibodyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of a diagnosis of progressive transformation of germinal centers (PTGC) in children are not well known. METHODS: To better understand this entity, we conducted a retrospective review of all patients aged 0-18 years diagnosed with PTGC at our center between 1998 and 2010. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 11.5 years, and median duration of follow-up was 2.8 years. Thirteen patients (45%) had a single episode of PTGC with no other associated features. Five patients (17%) had recurrent PTGC. Four patients (14%) had PTGC associated with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): one preceding, two concurrent, and one subsequently developed HL. The most commonly associated HL was nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL. Seven patients (24%) had PTGC associated with immune disorders, including lupus, Castleman disease, and probable autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome. Overall, 15 patients (52%) had more than one lymph node biopsy. The cumulative incidence of a second biopsy after a diagnosis of PTGC was 42.3% ± 12.2% at 4 years. PTGC was PET-avid in all four patients tested. CONCLUSIONS: PTGC is a nonspecific manifestation of a variety of associated conditions. There is a small risk of subsequent HL, and a larger risk of requiring multiple biopsies for recurrent PTGC. The presence of an immune disorder should be considered in patients who present with generalized lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, immune cytopenias, and/or progression to HL. Routine surveillance imaging may not be required. Future research should determine the optimal surveillance strategy for patients with PTGC and the indications for repeat biopsies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207