Hornstein–Knickenberg syndrome vs. Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome: a critical review of an unjustified designation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disorder that is presently called 'Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome' was in reality delineated in 1975 by Otto P. Hornstein and Monika Knickenberg from Erlangen (Germany) who emphasized that the occurrence of multiple 'perifollicular fibromas' represented a distinct autosomal dominant trait heralding extracutaneous cancer proneness. By contrast, Arthur R. Birt, Georgina R. Hogg and W. James Dubé from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, claimed in 1977 that they had discovered 'a previously unrecognized hereditary pilar hamartoma' for which they proposed the name 'fibrofolliculoma', to be distinguished from the perifollicular fibromas as reported by Hornstein and Knickenberg. Today, many authors believe that 'fibrofolliculoma' is identical with 'perifollicular fibroma', but for the purpose of the present article this question can be left open. More importantly, the Canadian authors did not mention any association with extracutaneous cancer proneness within the large family examined in Winnipeg, nor when discussing the report from Erlangen, which means that they have neither described nor redescribed the syndrome that presently bears their names. Hence, the autosomal dominant disorder of multiple perifollicular fibromas heralding proclivity to extracutaneous cancer should be called after the original authors, Hornstein-Knickenberg syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".