Treatment of primary cutaneous apocrine carcinoma of the scalp - case and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case reportA previously healthy 42 year-old woman presented at her family doctor after her hairdresser noticed a nodule in the left temporo-parietal area of the scalp.The mass was a firm, reddish nodule measuring approximately 3 × 2 cm.The patient was completely asymptomatic.She was referred to dermatology, and the lesion was excised.The initial pathology report showed a moderately-well differentiated adenocarcinoma.It was unclear at this time whether this was a primary lesion of the sweat gland or metastatic adenocarcinoma from another site.She was then referred to our centre for oncologic work-up.The pathology was reviewed and confirmed a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma (Figure 1).The tumour was formed by single tubules or complex back to back tubular structures with areas where the luminal cells showed apical snouts.The lesion filled the reticular dermis without involving the epidermis.No perineural or lymphovascular invasion was present.The resection margins were clear, with the closest margin at 2 mm.The immunohistochemistry showed positivity for CK 7, ER, PR, Androgen receptor, CDX2, Ber ep4 and EMA.It was found to be negative for High molecular weight keratin, CK 20, COX2, CDX2, TTF1, Renal cell marker, CD 117, and CEA.It was concluded that this profile was most consistent with a metastatic breast carcinoma; however an eccrine/apocrine carcinoma of the skin could not be completely ruled out.On physical examination, there was no palpable lymphadenopathy of the neck, supraclavicular or infraclavicular regions bilaterally.No pre-or postauricular lymphadenopathy.On the left temporal parietal scalp, there was a 3 cm, well-healed scar, with no signs of infection or
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".