Localized infantile hemangiomas of the face and scalp: Predilection for the midline and periorbital and perioral skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Infantile hemangiomas are common vascular tumors. Identifying sites of predilection may provide insight into pathogenesis. Previous studies have suggested a predilection for the boundary of facial metameres. The objective was to observe patterns of localized hemangiomas on the face and scalp, determine sites of predilection, and place these patterns in a developmental context. METHODS: A retrospective review of photographic archives at 10 Hemangioma Investigator Group pediatric dermatology centers identified localized infantile hemangiomas of the face and scalp. Heat map software was used to identify areas of predilection. Dot maps were used to assess frequency, and densities of infantile hemangiomas were compared between facial units using t-testing. The scalp was divided into quintiles to assess relative frequencies. RESULTS: Four thousand one hundred fifty-three focal face and scalp infantile hemangiomas were mapped, of which 2962 (71%) were mapped to a frontal facial template. On the face, 73.8% (2186/2962) of hemangiomas occurred along the midline axis or perpendicularly across the ocular axis in a cross-shaped area of predilection intersecting at the glabella. Scalp hemangiomas show a predilection for the midline, with 149/295 (50.5%) noted on the top of the scalp at the midline (P < 0.001). Localized hemangiomas do not demonstrate a preferential laterality. CONCLUSION: The distribution of localized infantile hemangiomas of the face and scalp is not random. There is preferential involvement of the midline face and scalp and the ocular axis. The regions corresponding to the boundaries between the embryonic facial segments, including the maxillary and mandibular metameres, are not accentuated in the distribution of infantile hemangiomas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".