MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889462889 · doi:10.14740/jh428w

Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm: A Case Report and Clinicopathological Review

2018· article· en· W2889462889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marwa Mohamed Abdel Fattah Zaki, Khaled Zalata, Amira Kamal El-Hawary, Noha Eisa, Shaimaa El Ashwah, Sameh Shamaa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyPlasmacytoid dendritic cellCD117MedicineCD34CD5Bone marrowCD20CD30Stem cellImmunohistochemistryDendritic cellLymphomaBiologyImmunologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is aggressive hematopoietic malignancy derived from the precursors of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. The present study reported a case of a 35-year-old BPDCN patient, who presented with scalp lesions without extracutaneous involvement of the lymph nodes (LNs), peripheral or bone marrow. Histopathological examination of scalp lesion revealed monomorphous diffuse infiltrate of small to medium-sized cells with irregular nuclear contours, pleomorphic nuclei, finely dispersed chromatin, inconspicuous nucleoli and scant amount of cytoplasm. Immunohistochemical staining showed diffuse positivity for CD45, CD4, CD 56, CD45 and negative for CD3, CD5, CD7, CD8, CD19, CD20, CD30, CD33, CD34, CD79a, CD99, CD117, TDT, and myeloperoxidase. Patient started treatment with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma protocol (Hyper-CVAD). Reevaluation after the second course showed marked regression of scalp lesion. The patient continued Hyper-CVAD protocol and planned for allogeneic stem cell transplant.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HematologySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207