Histopathologic, phenotypic, and molecular criteria to discriminate low-grade intestinal T-cell lymphoma in cats from lymphoplasmacytic enteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differentiation of low-grade intestinal T-cell lymphoma (LGITL) from lymphoplasmacytic enteritis (LPE) in cats is a diagnostic challenge for pathologists. OBJECTIVE: Characterize histologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of LGITL and LPE. ANIMALS: Forty-four client-owned cats, 22 diagnosed with LGITL and 22 with LPE. METHODS: Prospective, cohort study. Clinical suspicion of LGITL or LPE was based on persistent gastrointestinal signs, unresponsive to empirical treatments. All cats underwent a standardized diagnostic evaluation, including biopsy (preferentially full-thickness), and were diagnosed with LGITL or LPE after review of clinical, laboratory, sonographic, histologic, immunohistochemical, and clonality results. RESULTS: A monomorphic lymphocytic population (22/22, 100%) and in-depth mucosal infiltration (15/22, 68%) were hallmarks of LGITL. Epithelial patterns (nests and plaques) were significantly more frequent in LGITL (11/22, 50%) than in LPE (1/22, 5%) cases (P = .001). A CD3+ lymphocytic apical-to-basal gradient was observed in 9/22 (41%) of LGITL vs 1/22 (5%) of LPE cases (P = .004). Most LPE cases (17/18, 94%) featured marked fibrosis in the superficial part of the lamina propria. The Ki-67 20%- and 30%-thresholds discriminated between LGITL and LPE within both the epithelium (specificity >95%) and lamina propria (specificity >95%), respectively. All LGITL cases were CD3+ pSTAT3- and pSTAT5+. T-cell receptor gamma chain gene rearrangements indicated monoclonality in 86% of LGITL cases. Surprisingly, 70% of LPE cases featured monoclonality (40%) or monoclonality on a polyclonal background (30%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: We identified new histologic, immunohistochemical, and clonality criteria to distinguish LGITL from LPE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".