Expression of desmin and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain in dermatofibromas: Implications for diagnosis of dermal spindle cell tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
c Background.—The histopathologic features of dermatofibroma vary remarkably, and this diversity may occasionally cause problems in differentiating between benign and malignant mesenchymal lesions, including smooth muscle neoplasms. Immunohistochemical stains are sometimes necessary to clarify the histogenesis of a lesion. Objective.—To evaluate dermatofibromas for expression of desmin and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain (SMMHC) antigens, which are commonly used as evidence of smooth muscle differentiation. Methods.—We studied 100 consecutive cases of dermatofibroma using hematoxylin-eosin‐stained sections and immunoperoxidase staining with antibodies against desmin, SM-MHC, and smooth muscle actin. Results.—We found focal positivity for desmin in 9 cases, and in 2 of these cases, at least 10% of lesional cells showed strong expression. We found focal staining for SMMHC in 10 cases, and in 2 of these cases, at least 10% of the lesional cells were positive. Regions positive for desmin and/or SM-MHC did not show definite histologic features of myogenous differentiation on hematoxylin-eosin‐ stained sections. All dermatofibromas expressing desmin and SM-MHC were also strongly positive for smooth muscle actin. Conclusions.—About 10% of dermatofibromas show focal expression of desmin and SM-MHC, and this expression may be present in up to 10% to 15% of lesional cells. Thus, in dermal spindle cell lesions, focal expression of these muscle antigens, like that of smooth muscle actin, is not diagnostic of a smooth muscle tumor. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:1179‐1183)
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".