MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989566621 · doi:10.1177/2050313x19890755

Localized ulcerative nodular amyloidosis presenting as ulcerative panniculitis, an unusual clinical manifestation: A case report

2019· article· en· W2989566621 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Fernandes, Vincent Éthier, Sofia Marouan, Myrna Chababi‐Atallah, Mylène Veilleux

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePanniculitisDermatologyAmyloidosisPrednisonePathologyDermisSystemic diseaseDiseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this article is to present and discuss a case of localized ulcerative nodular amyloidosis with deep involvement clinically manifesting as ulcerative panniculitis and discuss its impact on the choice of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a 73-year-old woman with a history of painful ulcerated nodules on the inferior limbs. Microscopy confirmed amyloid deposits deep in the dermis and subcutaneous fat. No systemic involvement was found. Considering that skin-directed treatments often are not able to reach subcutaneous fat or were contraindicated because of the ulcers, she was successfully treated with cyclophosphamide and prednisone. CONCLUSION: Localized ulcerative nodular amyloidosis with deep involvement is a rare clinical presentation that can present as ulcerative panniculitis. Such a clinical manifestation might be misleading. Systemic treatment might be necessary to control symptoms when conventional skin-directed therapies are contraindicated.

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)0.002
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, OutcomesFrench-language works237,207