MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328752100 · doi:10.1097/dad.0b013e3182330550

Cutaneous Ciliated Cyst on the Finger

2012· article· en· W2328752100 on OpenAlexaff
Tawny Hung, Aparche Yang, Scott W. Binder, Raymond L. Barnhill

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer and Skin Lesions
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystPathologyFallopian tubeMetaplasiaCiliumBiologyAnatomyColumnar CellEpitheliumMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As previously recognized by various authors, "cutaneous ciliated cyst" is a confusing term. Typically, the term refers to rare cystic lesions, commonly found on the lower limbs of women in their reproductive years. To date, 40 cases diagnosed as "cutaneous ciliated cyst" have been reported in the literature. Histologically, the cysts are composed of a simple layer of ciliated columnar cells along with nonciliated columnar cells, cuboidal cells, and round "peg-like" cells, resembling fallopian tube epithelium. This histology has been described in cysts found in males and females and in locations other than the lower limbs. Controversy has thus arisen over the etiology of these lesions, with some believing that the cysts arise from heterotopic Mullerian rests and others advocating for ciliated metaplasia of eccrine glands. We herein describe the first case of cutaneous ciliated cyst of Mullerian origin occurring on the dorsal thumb of a 16-year-old female. A review of literature shows that 2 groups of cysts are covered under the umbrella term "cutaneous ciliated cysts." We thus propose the abandonment of the confusing term "cutaneous ciliated cyst" and the adoption of "cutaneous Mullerian cysts" for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive lesions resembling simple fallopian tube epithelium and "Cutaneous ciliated eccrine cyst" for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-negative lesions usually occurring in males, which are immunohistochemically compatible with an eccrine origin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicCancer and Skin LesionsFrench-language works237,207