MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789648908 · doi:10.1097/rlu.0b013e3181f4baba

Dermatopathic Lymphadenitis

2010· article· en· W2789648908 on OpenAlexaff
William Makis, Marc Hickeson, Miriam Blumenkrantz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nuclear Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphPathologyLymphomaAxillary lymph nodesHistopathologyLymphatic systemDifferential diagnosisRadiologyDermatologyMetastasisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dermatopathic lymphadenitis (also known as lipomelanotic reticulosis, or Pautrier–Woringer disease) is a rare type of benign lymphatic hyperplasia associated with a variety of exfoliative or eczematoid type inflammatory erythrodermas. The axillary and inguinal regions are most commonly affected, although occasionally it can present in the head and neck as well. On histologic examination, the affected lymph nodes contain melanin and fat-laden reticular cells. This is a case of a 10-year-old boy with a history of severe eczema, who presented with enlarged lymph nodes. F-18 FDG PET/CT imaging showed intensely FDG-avid lymph nodes in the cervical, axillary, and inguinal regions and a diagnosis of lymphoma was suggested; however, histopathology revealed dermatopathic lymphadenitis. This entity is a potential pitfall in the F-18 FDG PET/CT evaluation of lymphoma and should be considered in the differential diagnosis, especially in individuals with a history of inflammatory erythrodermas. To our knowledge, this is the first report of F-18 FDG PET/CT imaging of dermatopathic lymphadenitis mimicking lymphoma.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nuclear MedicineSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207