MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387568102 · doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqad118

Reply to “Kikuchi disease and COVID-19 vaccination”

2023· article· en· W4387568102 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey W. Craig, Pedro Farinha, Aixiang Jiang, Brian Skinnider, Graham W. Slack, Andrew Lytle

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceColumbia universityHistoryClassicsMedicineGerontologyMedia studiesSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are grateful for Dr Yu’s interest in our recent report of an association between Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease (KFD) and antecedent COVID-19 vaccine administration in British Columbia.1 It was our hope to inspire other groups to come forward with their own data, and the preliminary analysis of axillary KFD cases from a KFD-endemic region of the world provides welcome fuel for discussion. The neck, and especially the posterior cervical triangle, is unquestionably the most common site of nodal involvement by idiopathic KFD, present in the vast majority of cases.2 Meanwhile, axillary lymphadenopathy, occurring with or without concurrent cervical lymphadenopathy, has been reported in just 13% of KFD cases worldwide.3 Within our COVID-19 vaccine–associated KFD cohort, 6 of 8 patients had clinical or radiographic evidence of axillary lymphadenopathy (compared with 5 of 8 patients with cervical lymphadenopathy). Further, KFD diagnoses were based on axillary lymph node biopsy in 5 of these patients (vs just 2 patients diagnosed by cervical lymph node biopsy). Our data are consistent with previous case reports of COVID-19 vaccine–associated KFD, in which at least 8 of 11 patients were documented as having axillary lymph node enlargement.4–7 These individuals hail from all over the world, and just like those in our cohort, all received messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines. The apparent excess of axillary lymph node involvement in published cases of COVID-19 vaccine–associated KFD strengthens the argument for causality and provides ample justification for the exploratory investigation performed by Dr Yu, which did not reveal a significant increase in axillary KFD diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic in the local population. To understand the relevance of this result, we must first acknowledge the intricacies of comparing studies across diverse populations. There are several potential reasons why an association, if one were truly present, may not have been observed. For example, KFD may manifest differently in different communities, regardless of vaccine influence. In endemic regions, KFD exhibits near-universal cervical involvement and is rarely diagnosed by axillary lymph node biopsy,8,9 whereas axillary lymphadenopathy can be found in nearly 40% of patients with KFD from Western populations of mixed racial/ethnic composition.10 The frequency of KFD-associated HLA risk alleles differs significantly between Asiatic peoples and Europeans and Africans,11 and clinical and serologic differences have been found between patients with KFD from Asia and those from Europe.3 It is therefore plausible that other important differences may exist, including variation in biological or other factors that could contribute to the degree of vaccine-induced KFD risk elevation. Differences in regional vaccine supply, especially the use of non–messenger RNA vaccines, may be particularly significant in this regard. Clinical practice habits must also be considered. It is currently unclear whether the axillary KFD cases Dr Yu identified represent all patients with axillary lymph node enlargement (which would require radiographic imaging of the axillae) or whether axillary KFD cases were simply those diagnosed by axillary lymph node biopsy. If the latter is true, local preference for targeting cervical lymph nodes over axillary lymph nodes may be a factor. Further, global awareness of the high incidence of conventional COVID-19 vaccine–associated lymphadenopathy would likely dissuade from axillary lymph node sampling because of the high probability of finding only common benign/reactive histology.12 Finally, the pandemic introduced a multitude of clinical practice changes that make direct comparisons with prepandemic statistics extremely challenging. Data from surveillance programs such as the European adverse events database (EudraVigilance) suggest that the number of COVID-19 vaccine–associated KFD cases is potentially much higher than currently appreciated.13 These tools have also captured instances of KFD occurring in the setting of other antecedent vaccinations (eg, human papillomavirus; tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and polio [Tdap-IPV]; influenza), and in this regard, we find the mild increase in axillary KFD cases following expanded influenza vaccine coverage in Taiwan in 2016 to be particularly intriguing. We eagerly await future studies addressing this topic and appreciate the opportunity for open scientific discourse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0270.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207