Dermatological and Genital Manifestations of Lyme Disease Including Morgellons Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marianne J Middelveen,1 John S Haggblad,2 Julie Lewis,3 Gilles A Robichaud,3 Roberto M Martinez,4 Jyotsna S Shah,5 Iris Du Cruz,5 Melissa C Fesler,6 Raphael B Stricker6 1Atkins Veterinary Services, Calgary, AB, Canada; 2Associate Clinic, Calgary, AB, Canada; 3Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada; 4Martinez Veterinary Services, Calgary, AB, Canada; 5IGeneX Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 6Union Square Medical Associates, San Francisco, CA, USACorrespondence: Raphael B StrickerUnion Square Medical Associates, 450 Sutter Street, Suite 1504, San Francisco, CA, 94108, USATel +1 415 399-1035Fax +1 415 399-1057Email rstricker@usmamed.comAbstract: Although the erythema migrans (EM) skin rash is traditionally considered a hallmark of Lyme disease, other dermatological manifestations of the tickborne disease are less well known. We describe a 49-year-old woman with erosive genital ulcerations, secondary EM rashes and jagged skin lesions associated with Lyme disease. The skin rashes exhibited fibers characteristic of Morgellons disease. Molecular testing confirmed the presence of Borrelia DNA in both vaginal culture and serum specimens. In further studies on a secondary EM lesion containing filaments, Gömöri trichrome staining revealed the presence of collagen in the filaments, while Dieterle and anti-Borrelia immunostaining revealed intracellular and extracellular Borrelia organisms. Intracellular staining for Borrelia was also observed in lymphocytic infiltrates. Lyme disease may present with a variety of genital lesions and dermatological manifestations including Morgellons disease. Careful evaluation is required to determine the presence of Borrelia organisms associated with these dermopathies.Keywords: Lyme disease, Morgellons disease, erythema migrans, Borrelia burgdorferi, tickborne disease, spirochetes
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".