Solitary nodule of cutaneous reticulohistiocytosis: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Solitary cutaneous reticulohistiocytosis represents a rare form of benign monocyte/macrophage proliferation. On routine histology, these lesions are typically described as large cells with cytoplasm showing ground glass appearance and giant cells. They grow up to 1 cm in size with rare cases exceeding this size. Case Report: This case report of a 28-year-old male demonstrated a nodule of reticulohistiocytosis measuring 2.2 cm in size. Microscopic features showed a well-demarcated nodule in the dermis with large histiocytes with ground-glass eosinophilic cytoplasm, giant cells, and foamy macrophages in a background of mixed inflammatory cells. Immunohistochemical staining showed positive staining for vimentin, CD68, CD31, with focal and patchy positivity for S100, CD43, and CD45 and negative staining for CD1a, langerin, CD21, CD23, CD30, CD34, ERG, D2-40, AE1/AE3, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), smooth muscle actin (SMA), myogenin, desmin, SOX10, HMB-45, tyrosinase, and MelanA. Conclusion: The microscopic and immunohistochemical findings are characteristic of this entity but it is important to recognize for proper management and differentiation from other malignant lesions.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".