[Clinical analysis of reactive thymic hyperplasia following chemotherapy for childhood malignant lymphoma].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Reactive thymic hyperplasia following chemotherapy for malignant tumors is likely to be misdiagnosed as tumor residue or relapse, therefore, leads to unnecessary treatment. This study was to analyze the clinical features of reactive thymic hyperplasia following chemotherapy for childhood malignant lymphoma. METHODS: Clinical data of 13 children with reactive thymic hyperplasia following chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma, treated from Mar. 1999 to Mar. 2004, were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 13 cases, 5 were Hodgkin's disease (HD), and 8 were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). All patients received computed tomography (CT) to evaluate the therapeutic effect. When a new thymic mass emerged, positive electron tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was performed to identify its quality. RESULTS: At diagnosis, 10 patients had mediastinal involvement. Reactive thymic hyperplasia occurred following the completion of chemotherapy in 9 cases, or during the maintenance of chemotherapy in 4 cases. CT showed that the longest diameters of the new mediastinal masses were 2.2-6.0 cm (mean 3.7 cm). The interval from last chemotherapy cycle to the occurrence of thymic hyperplasia was 2-12 months (mean 4 months). PET/CT was performed to 5 cases, and showed no vital tumors in the mediastinum. Three cases were misdiagnosed as tumor residue or relapse, and received second-line therapy. All patients were followed-up for 1-6 years (median 4 years), and none suffered tumor relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Reactive thymic hyperplasia may occur following intensive chemotherapy for childhood malignant lymphoma. It should not be misdiagnosed as malignant tumors and overtreated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".