MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089159445 · doi:10.1177/2050313x20953110

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa and concurrent pseudoxanthoma elasticum–like phenotype: A case report

2020· article· en· W3089159445 on OpenAlexaff
Roxana Mititelu, Larry W Cheung, Denis Sasseville

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDermatological and Skeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudoxanthoma elasticumPolyarteritis nodosaMedicineDermatologyGenodermatosisPathologyVasculitisGeneDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a unique case of a patient presenting with histologically confirmed pseudoxanthoma elasticum-like phenotype and cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa. Cardiac, gastroenterological, and ophthalmologic evaluations were within normal limits. Genetic evaluation was pertinent for absent ABCC6, ENPP1, and GGCX mutations and a normal array comparative genomic hybridization. Extensive workup revealed skin-limited cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa, and further genetic testing for ADA2 deficiency was negative. The cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa lesions had an excellent response to hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate. Pseudoxanthoma elasticum and polyarteritis nodosa are relatively uncommon, and our patient is among the first reported cases presenting with both pseudoxanthoma elasticum-like and polyarteritis nodosa. Furthermore, this case emphasizes the importance of a thorough cutaneous exam, as the patient had the lesions consistent with pseudoxanthoma elasticum-like since childhood and had previously gone undiagnosed.

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)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicDermatological and Skeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207