MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125477717 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2020-238644

Concurrent development of HIV-negative Kaposi’s sarcoma and mycosis fungoides in an elderly Inuit from Canada

2021· article· en· W3125477717 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helbies Bedier, John Lin, L Julien, Jean‐Pierre Routy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycosis fungoidesSarcomaSkin biopsyMedicineImmunosuppressionMalignancyDermatologyLymphomaNodule (geology)BiopsyKaposi's sarcomaPathologyImmunologyHuman herpesvirusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 88-year-old Inuit man from Northern Canada presented with an extensive skin rash associated with numerous violaceous skin nodules on his palms and lower extremities. Biopsy of a skin nodule revealed Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), a human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8)-associated malignancy, whereas biopsy of the erythematous skin showed an atypical infiltrate of CD4-positive T-cells that, together with TCR gene rearrangement and presence of clonal T-cells in peripheral blood by flow cytometry, was consistent with a T-cell lymphoma, mycosis fungoides (MF) subtype. Serology was negative for HIV and HTLV-I/II and no immunodeficiency syndrome was identified. The patient was successfully treated with an oral retinoid for KS, and with topical hydrocortisone and ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy for MF. This case highlights the existence of HHV8-related lesions in native persons of Northern Canada, and also that MF-induced immunosuppression combined with immunosenescence may play a role in the development of non-HIV-related KS.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207