MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411672566 · doi:10.1002/jvc2.70085

Atypical Gamma‐Delta‐Positive T‐Cell Lymphoproliferation With Clinical Features of Lymphomatoid Papulosis in Three Children

2025· article· en· W4411672566 on OpenAlexaff
Madeleine Lachance, Ram‐Wolff Caroline, S. Nina, Pauline Bataille, Bourrat Emmanuelle, Dumont Maëlle, Gilles Battesti, Bozonnat Alizée, M Omran Samia, M Helene, M. Bagot, Michalak Sophie, Werner Kempf, Battistella Maxime, Adèle de Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueJEADV Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
FundersEuropean Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
KeywordsLymphomatoid papulosisMedicineDermatologyDeltaImmunologyLymphomaPhysicsMycosis fungoides

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Primary cutaneous gamma‐delta T‐cell lymphoma has been described as an aggressive entity with a poor prognosis. However, gamma‐delta T‐cell receptor expression has been described in various types of skin lymphoproliferations. Paediatric cases of LyP are increasingly recognized, but paediatric LyP with a gamma‐delta phenotype have been rarely described. We report three paediatric patients with indolent gamma‐delta lymphoproliferation, with a relapsing‐remitting course evoking LyP. These three cases emphasize that TCR gamma‐delta expression in a lymphoproliferation is not a synonym of gamma‐delta lymphoma. Indeed, these cases raise the question of a paediatric variant of CD30‐negative lymphomatoid papulosis with histological features of atypical gamma‐delta‐positive T‐cell lymphoproliferation and underline the necessity of cautious clinico‐histological correlation when facing a gamma‐delta lymphoproliferation to avoid overtreatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJEADV Clinical PracticeSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207