MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400646865 · doi:10.1097/dad.0000000000002789

Cutaneous Deciduosis: A Rare Cutaneous Lesion Mimicking Malignancy

2024· article· en· W4400646865 on OpenAlexaff
Mukund Tinguria, Katherine Chorneyko, Odette Boutross‐Tadross

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyMalignancyMedicineEosinophilicEpithelioid cellLesionPleomorphism (cytology)Immunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous deciduosis is an extremely rare condition that clinically presents as a nodular lesion in the skin as a scar or neoplasm. Histologically, this may pose a diagnostic challenge simulating malignant epithelioid neoplasms including sarcoma. Histologically, a nodular growth pattern of large monomorphic epithelioid cells is observed. The epithelioid cells in deciduosis can appear atypical with considerable nuclear pleomorphism, mimicking a malignancy. These features can be misinterpreted as a primary cutaneous or metastatic malignancy by dermatopathologists who are not familiar with gynecologic pathology. Failure to correctly diagnose this condition may result in unnecessary diagnostic studies for the patient. In this article, we report a case of cutaneous deciduosis in a 35-year-old woman with a cesarean scar. Histological examination revealed nodular proliferation of large epithelioid cells with pale eosinophilic cytoplasm and large nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Compressed atrophic slit-like glands resembling endometrial glands were present in some areas. Histopathological features of decidual cells, along with appropriate immunohistochemical studies, help establish the diagnosis and rule out other neoplastic mimics of deciduosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207