MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412798083 · doi:10.1097/dad.0000000000003088

Nonspecific Granular Reactivity of EBER In-Situ Hybridization in a Patient of Black Hairy Tongue

2025· article· en· W4412798083 on OpenAlexaff
N Sina, Carlos A. Torres-Cabala, Víctor G. Prieto

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTongueIn situ hybridizationIn situReactivity (psychology)MedicinePathologyDermatologyBiologyChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is well known to be associated with various mucocutaneous disorders in immunosuppressed hosts, especially post-transplant patients. Some of these are oral hairy leukoplakia, EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcers, and EBV-related cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders.1 The method of choice for detecting EBV infection in formalin-fixed tissue remains in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded RNA (EBER).2 Positive EBER in situ hybridization (EBER ISH) test presents as blue nuclear staining of the latently infected cells in formalin-fixed tissue.3,4 Cross-reactivity or false staining of the test has been reported with yeasts, plants, and mucin.5,6 Cross-reactivity with EBER in subcutaneous aluminum granulomas at the site of prior vaccination, presenting as cytoplasmic staining in aluminum-containing histiocytes, has also been documented.7 The mechanism of these cross-reactivities has not yet been confirmed. We report a 70-year-old man, status of 10 years post liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma and receiving tacrolimus. He had a history of multiple cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. In his latest surgery to remove a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, the surgeon also biopsied a tongue lesion that was described as a firm lesion on the dorsal tongue. Biopsy showed acanthotic squamous mucosa with bacterial colonies in the superficial keratotic layers consistent with lingua nigra (black hairy tongue) without evidence of dysplasia or malignancy. Owing to his medical history and the location of the lesion, EBER ISH test was performed to exclude EBV effect. With appropriate positive and negative controls, the keratinocyte nuclei were negative. However, there was a fine granular positivity on the surface of the keratinous layer in the area that we could see superficial bacterial colonies on the H&E-stained slide (Fig. 1).FIGURE 1.: A and B, Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained low- and high-power views of the tongue biopsy specimen, showing hyperkeratosis and acanthosis with bacterial colonies present in the superficial keratotic layer. No evidence of dysplasia or malignancy is observed. C, Epstein–Barr virus-encoded RNA in situ hybridization (EBER-ISH), high-power view, demonstrating fine granular positivity superficial to the keratotic layer.In patients of black hairy tongue, the surface is usually covered by a mixture of debris (including keratin and food, such as pigment-containing drinks like tea or coffee) and bacteria. Whether the fine granular staining seen in our patient is solely due to the stained bacteria or nonspecific absorption of the surface mixture of debris and bacteria cannot be definitively determined. To the best of our knowledge, cross-reactivity of EBER ISH with bacteria has not been previously reported and the possibility of EBV infection of the bacteria is likely biologically implausible, because EBV primarily infects human B cells and epithelial cells. Regardless of whether bacteria or the mixture of debris and bacteria on the surface show cross-reactivity, this represents a false-positive reaction. This observation further supports the idea that proper interpretation of ancillary tests requires evaluation of the H&E histologic context to avoid possible pitfalls.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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 venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicOral Health Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207