Herpesvirus 8–Negative Primary Effusion Lymphoma Associated With Hepatitis C Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nador et al. 5 first identified two types of primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) with different etiologic and genetic backgrounds. A striking finding of this report was that the presence of human herpes virus type 8 (HHV8) and the rearrangement of the c-MYC gene appeared to be mutually exclusive molecular events. 5 Thus, we proposed classifying HHV8+c-MYCG and HHV8−c-MYCR as PEL type I and type II respectively. 2 Because the lymphoma cells in our case showed neither HHV8 by polymerase chain reaction nor c-MYC gene rearrangement by cytogenetics or Southern blot analysis, we proposed a third category of PEL—HHV8−c-MYCG, or PEL type III. We considered that the patient reported by Ascoli et al. 1 could belong to either PEL type II or type III. 2 The demonstration of t(8;22)(q24;q11) by cytogenetics and the Burkitt morphology of the lymphoma cells in that patient argue for c-MYC gene involvement. However, it is well recognized that a cytogenetic breakpoint at 8q24 is not always synonymous with a rearranged c-MYC gene. 3,4,6 In the absence of more definitive proof of a c-MYC gene rearrangement, we subclassified tentatively the patient of Ascoli et al. 1 into the type III category. However, if a c-MYC gene rearrangement could be demonstrated by detailed analysis with genomic deoxyribonucleic acid, we would classify the patient as type II. We agree that HHV8− PEL represents a less well-characterized group than HHV8+ PEL, and that there is a need to identify more HHV8− PEL patients to achieve consensus in classifying these lymphomas. The initial report that the presence of HHV8− PEL was associated invariably with rearrangement of the c-MYC gene and Burkitt morphology, and our findings that point to the existence of HHV8−c-MYCG PEL with non-Burkitt morphology, suggests that PEL type III may represent a distinct category of these lymphomas. Ryo Ichinohasama M.D., Ph.D. Ikuo Miura M.D., Ph.D. John F. DeCoteau M.D.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".