Eosinophils in the skin—a red herring masking lymphoma: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilia, both peripheral and in cutaneous tissue, is not a typical finding in mycosis fungoides; in fact, when faced with a lymphoeosinophilic infiltrate, mycosis fungoides is often not part of initial differential considerations. However, eosinophilia has been described in certain subtypes of mycosis fungoides, namely, in folliculotropic mycosis fungoides. We describe three challenging cases of folliculotropic mycosis fungoides presenting with varied clinical morphologies and a dense lymphoeosinophilic infiltrate and/or severe hypereosinophilia that obscured the final diagnosis for years. Only after treatment of the eosinophilia were the underlying atypical lymphocytes more apparent on histology and a correct diagnosis made. Thus, when characteristic features of mycosis fungoides are subtle, eosinophils can act as a red herring in terms of clinico-pathologic correlation and may prevent early and accurate diagnosis of mycosis fungoides. We suggest that further studies are needed to evaluate whether treatments to reduce eosinophilia, once other causes have been excluded, may help clear the confounding reactive inflammatory infiltrate and facilitate the diagnosis of mycosis fungoides.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".