Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary malignant apocrine and eccrine skin neoplasms are rare and their nosology is still evolving. First described in 1997, solid carcinoma is now considered a discrete entity by some, although this remains controversial. Apocrine differentiation was postulated. A single case since then was the first to include immunohistochemistry findings. The authors report an additional case of solid carcinoma, together with its immunohistochemical profile. A 63-year-old man presented with a firm nodule 3 cm in diameter on the posterior scalp. On punch biopsy, the lesion was interpreted as an adnexal neoplasm of indeterminate malignant potential. The subsequently excised tumor was initially interpreted as microcystic adnexal carcinoma with perineural invasion involving the surgical margins. Re-excision yielded clear surgical margins. After review of all the histologic material, a final diagnosis of solid carcinoma was rendered. Histologically, innumerable solid aggregations of neoplastic epithelial cells filled the dermis and extended into the subcutis. The aggregations varied in size and ranged from round or ovoid nests to elongated columns or cords embedded within a fibrotic stroma. The neoplastic cells were round and uniform in size with small nuclei and pale or clear cytoplasm. Tubular structures and mitoses were absent. Solid carcinoma is a rare skin neoplasm. Histologically, it closely resembles and may be indistinguishable from the solid areas of microcystic adnexal carcinoma. Biologically, solid carcinoma, like microcystic adnexal carcinoma, is an indolent but relentless locally destructive neoplasm that must be removed completely. The clinical, histologic, and biologic similarities suggest that solid carcinoma may be a variant of microcystic adnexal carcinoma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".