Clonal B cell populations in a minority of patients with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) is a risk factor for thyroid lymphoma, and clonal B cell populations in HT support this link. The literature on B cell clonality in HT is controversial. AIMS: To identify clonal B cell populations in HT and to assess their usefulness in differentiating HT from mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma and predicting future development of lymphoma. METHODS: DNA from formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded blocks of thyroid specimens from 10 patients with HT and two thyroid MALT lymphomas was analysed for B cell clonality by seminested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using FRIII/LJH and FRIII/VLJH primers to amplify the IgH gene VDJ region. In one case, PCR products were sequenced. Immunohistochemistry was performed by labelled streptavidin-biotin technique using antibodies to: CD45, CD45RO, CD3, CD20, and cytokeratin. RESULTS: The histopathological and clinical findings were characteristic of HT. Clonal bands were seen in three and a polyclonal smear pattern was seen in seven cases. The clonal bands in HT were associated with a background smear, and could not be reproduced from other blocks from the same case or from deeper sections of the same block. The clonal bands in thyroid lymphomas were not associated with a background smear and were reproducible. None of the patients with clonal B cells has developed malignant lymphoma during a follow up of 10-13 years. CONCLUSIONS: B cell clonal bands in HT have different features from those in lymphoma (non-pure and non-reproducible) and do not predict future development of lymphoma.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".