Treatment modalities and the Neuropathology of Palmar hyperhidrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palmar Hyperhidrosis (PHH) is a largely idiopathic condition that leads to significant dermatological and socio-professional concerns. This article reviews the method of treating PHH and defines the role of the neuropathologist, which is poorly illustrated in current literature. PHH is treated with the stepwise use of aluminum salts, iontophoresis, Botox injections, systemic drugs and finally endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS). ETS is currently saved for medically refractory PHH and the procedure is being optimized. Currently consideration is being given to whether the T2 vs. the T2 T3 T4 ganglia should be excised or whether they should be reversibly clamped or permanently excised. Although during ETS the surgeon can correctly identify the ganglion, the pathologist still plays a role in studying the histopathology to gain further understanding of the pathophysiology of PHH. Some of the pathohistological changes that may be observed in the PHH ganglia include neuronal cell death, lipofuscin accumulation, and inflammation. At present the relationship of these findings to the clinical presentation and pathogenesis of PHH is unclear, and without an animal model, research will be slow. Thus, the neuropathologist and surgeon should take special note of the clinical picture and correlate the number of pathohistological findings with the degree of clinical symptoms. Finally, the neuropathologist may assess the type of inflammation (i.e. monocytic vs. lymphocytic) via immunohistochemical stains and continue the search for non-documented and undiscovered pathohistologic markers of PHH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".