Causes of hypereosinophilia in 100 consecutive patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: /L) and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES, HE with end-organ damage) are classified as primary (due to a myeloid clone), secondary (due to a wide variety of reactive causes), or idiopathic. Diagnostic evaluation of eosinophilia is challenging, in part because secondary causes of HE/HES such as lymphocyte-variant HES (L-HES) and vasculitis are difficult to diagnose, and emerging causes such as immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) have rarely been examined. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We reviewed 100 consecutive patients with HE/HES who underwent extensive evaluation for primary and secondary eosinophilia at a single tertiary care center to determine causes of HE/HES in a modern context. RESULTS: Six patients had primary HE/HES, 80 had a discrete secondary cause identified, and 14 had idiopathic HE/HES. The most common causes of secondary eosinophilia were L-HES/HES of unknown significance (L-HESus) (20), IgG4-RD (9), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) (8). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other large published series of HE/HES, most patients in this study were found to have a discrete secondary cause of eosinophilia and only 14 were deemed idiopathic. These findings highlight the importance of extensive evaluation for secondary causes of eosinophilia such as L-HES, IgG4-RD, and EGPA.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it