MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973062927 · doi:10.1111/jdv.15931

Lymphomatoid papulosis: an update and review

2019· review· en· W2973062927 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Aidé Martínez‐Cabriales, Stephen R. Walsh, Shachar Sade, Neil H. Shear

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphomatoid papulosisMedicineMycosis fungoidesAnaplastic large-cell lymphomaLymphoproliferative disordersDifferential diagnosisLymphomaPathologyDermatologyImmunophenotypingHistologyBiopsyImmunologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) is a benign chronic often relapsing skin condition that belongs to the CD30-positive cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders. LyP typically presents as crops of lesions with a tendency to self-resolve, and morphology can range from solitary to agminated or diffuse papules and plaques to nodules or tumours. The clinical-histological spectrum can range from borderline cases to overlap with primary cutaneous anaplastic cell lymphoma (pcALCL). Histology and immunophenotype commonly show overlap with other CD30-positive disorders and sometimes may be identical to pcALCL, making its diagnosis more difficult. Patients with LyP have an increased risk of developing a second neoplasm such as mycosis fungoides, pcALCL and/or Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical correlation allows its proper classification and diagnosis, which is fundamental for treatment and prognosis. This review focuses on the clinical appearance, histopathological features, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and management of LyP.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations89
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207