<scp>CD200</scp> expression on Sezary cells: A valuable tool for flow cytometric assessment of peripheral blood T‐cell neoplasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CD200 (OX-2) is a valuable marker in the diagnosis of B-cell neoplasms and is commonly used in the screening panels for assessment of peripheral blood B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders. However, there is limited understanding about CD200 expression in T-cell neoplasms. A previous study has shown that CD200 is expressed on the neoplastic cells of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) by immunohistochemistry, but no study has evaluated CD200 expression in T-cell neoplasms by flow cytometry. METHODS: We assessed CD200 expression in peripheral blood T-cell lymphoproliferative disorders by retrospective analysis of our institutional flow cytometry screening database over a 6-year period. RESULTS: In addition to AITL, we identified CD200 expression in a significant number of mycosis fungoides/Sezary syndrome cases (58%, 19 of 33 samples), while most other T-cell neoplasms were negative for CD200. These findings were confirmed by CD200 immunohistochemical staining of tissue specimens from our patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: CD200 is commonly expressed on circulating Sezary cells, a feature that can potentially improve the diagnostic value of flow cytometry for assessment of T-cell neoplasms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".