MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401280302 · doi:10.1002/pbc.26076

Primary Cutaneous Lymphomas in Children and Adolescents

2016· review· en· W2401280302 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Ceppi, Elena Pope, Bo Ngan, Oussama Abla

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMycosis fungoidesPathologicalCD30Lymphoproliferative disordersLymphomaDermatologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary cutaneous lymphomas are rare in children and mostly represented by mycosis fungoides and CD30(+) lymphoproliferative disorders. Most pediatric cutaneous lymphomas have similar clinical/pathological features as their adult counterparts, particularly the T-cell subtypes. With regard to outcome, adult cutaneous mature T-cell lymphomas have a tendency to progression, while this appears to be relatively infrequent in children. The outcome of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas depends on subtype, with the B-lymphoblastic entity being associated with similar outcomes to precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia, while there are insufficient data on other entities. The diagnosis and treatment of these patients require a close collaboration between experienced pediatric pathologists, dermatologists, and oncologists. Prospective collection of longitudinal clinical and biological data from children with these rare lymphomas is needed to better understand their biological and clinical behavior and to ultimately discover the best therapeutic strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207