MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463493999 · doi:10.1177/1203475416658000

Primary Cutaneous B-Cell Lymphoma in Young Monozygotic Twins

2016· article· en· W2463493999 on OpenAlexaff
Houda Bahig, Tina Petrogiannis‐Haliotis, Kevin Pehr, David Roberge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiologyPathologyMedicineMonozygotic twinLymphomaLymphoproliferative disordersMarginal zoneHistologyPathogenesisB cellDermatologyImmunologyBiologyGeneticsAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although familial aggregation of lymphoproliferative disorders has been described, heredity has not been implicated in the etiology of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas (PCBCL). We report herein the first case of 2 young monozygotic twins with PCBCL. The first twin was an 18-year-old woman when she presented with multiple skin nodules on the thorax and head. Histology showed an atypical small B-cell proliferation, consistent with primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL). Molecular genetics studies demonstrated B-cell clonality. Seven years later, the second twin developed her first lesion that was histologically similar to that of her twin. She subsequently developed other clinically similar lesions. Histology was consistent with PCMZL and showed B-cell clonality. Occurrence of PCBCL in these monozygotic twins raises the possibility of a genetic risk factor. Further study of such rare cases may offer valuable insights into the molecular basis of the etiology and pathogenesis of this unusual disorder.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207