Differentiated Exophytic Vulvar Intraepithelial Lesions: Case Reports and Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this article were to describe 2 patients with a pathological diagnosis of differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesion and to summarize the literature regarding this relatively new diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The existing literature was searched on December 1, 2021, using the MEDLINE database (1966-2021), and all combinations of the following search terms were used: "differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesion" and "differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia." RESULTS: Patients were postmenopausal and reported persistent vulvar itch associated with white hypertrophic plaques. Initial biopsies did not identify differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesion. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma was found in both cases after surgical excision. CONCLUSIONS: Differentiated vulvar intraepithelial lesions and invasive squamous cell carcinoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of vulvar itch associated with hypertrophic plaques in postmenopausal women. Excision of suspicious plaques is recommended for definitive diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".