{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017839444995044598, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002973240832507433, 'mean_word_length': 6.062937062937063, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shall we exclude parapsoriasis from the medical vocabulary?

Since the first description of parapsoriasis more than 100 years ago, parapsoriasis has been a questionable condition and occasionally considered a precursor of cutaneous lymphoma. The name “parapsoriasis” is related to a heterogenous group of diseases that show a distinct clinical presentation; however, the histopathological criteria are not strongly specific. Pathologists do not consider parapsoriasis as a possible histopathological diagnosis, but dermatologists use the term as clinical hypothesis. We aim to provide an historical review of parapsoriasis focusing on histopathological criteria, considering its possible relation with cutaneous skin lymphoma, based on articles from PubMed and standard dermatopathological books. Parapsoriasis does not have well‐defined histopathological criteria, so its use should be avoided. Being aware of parapsoriasis complexity, a consensus meeting can help to create a guideline regarding this topic.