MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220678016 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000881

Leiomyoma With Massive Lymphoid Infiltration: 2 Cases With Lymphocytic Vasculopathy and Angiocentric Germinal Centers

2022· article· en· W4220678016 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminal centerLeiomyomaLesionLymphatic systemInfiltration (HVAC)Lymphocytic infiltration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uterine leiomyoma with massive lymphoid infiltration is characterized by a dense lymphoid infiltrate and germinal centers sparing the adjacent myometrium. Only few reports describe this entity and its etiology is unknown. This rare lesion may also exhibit lymphocytic vasculopathy but this has only been reported in the setting of GnRH agonist exposure. We report 2 cases of uterine leiomyoma with massive lymphoid infiltration in which only 1 patient was exposed to GnRH agonists. In both cases, histopathologic analysis showed thick-walled vessels with swollen endothelial cells showing evidence of intramural lymphocytic infiltration, red blood cell extravasation, and medial edema. This constellation of findings represented frank vascular damage and lymphocytic vasculopathy. Our findings suggest that lymphocytic vasculopathy in these lesions may be secondary to factors other than GnRH agonists. Furthermore, both cases showed an angiocentric disposition of germinal centers that has scarcely been alluded to in prior reports. This finding may provide a clue in accurately recognizing leiomyoma with massive lymphoid infiltration. Recognition of this lesion will allow one to avoid mistaking it for mimickers such as inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, lymphoid malignancies, or other inflammatory processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207