Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background An epidemic of syphilis persists in UK men who have sex with men (MSM), often with unusual manifestations. We report a case of syphilis mimicking a lymphoproliferative disorder. Case A 29-year-old previously well MSM was admitted with 3 weeks of generalised painless lymphadenopathy. He reported malaise, night sweats and joint pain while travelling recently in the Middle East. He was apyrexial and routine bloods were normal apart from mildly raised liver enzymes. Paul Bunnell and HIV antibody tests were negative. His GP screened for STIs but did not include syphilis serology despite the patient describing penile lesions. Clinicians felt that the presentation was highly suggestive of lymphoma. A CT scan showed multiple enlarged lymph nodes in the neck and small bowel mesentery. An open cervical lymph node biopsy was performed. Histopathology showed suppurating granuloma in a reactive lymph node with no evidence of lymphoma. Stains for HIV p24, acid-fast bacilli and fungi were negative. The suggested differential included lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV), cat scratch disease and melioidosis. At GU medicine review he reported sex with multiple partners in the preceding 6 months. He had a blotchy maculopapular rash on his penis and scrotum, though this was treated as “fungal” by junior staff. Molecular tests for chlamydial and gonococcal infections were negative, including throat swabs. Treponema pallidum (TP) antibodies were positive, RPR = 1:256. He was recalled and started on doxycycline for both secondary syphilis and possible LGV. Two weeks later his lymphadenopathy had greatly reduced in size. His original lymph node biopsy was retrieved and TP immunostaining was performed, which revealed a profuse infiltrate of spirochetes. Conclusion This case highlights the need for clinicians from all specialities to be alert for the many clinical manifestations of syphilis currently prevalent in MSM. Wider use of TP immunostaining in relevant specimens is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.194 | 0.046 |
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".