MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503580222 · doi:10.5539/cco.v2n1p73

The Characteristics of Immunoreactivity of Alpha-fetoprotein Producing Gastric Cancer

2013· article· en· W1503580222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Swei H. Tsung

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlpha-fetoproteinCarcinoembryonic antigenImmunostainingCancerMedicineRadioimmunoassayPathologyHepatocellular carcinomaOncofetal antigenImmunohistochemistryPolyclonal antibodiesAntigenInternal medicineGastroenterologyImmunologyTumor associated antigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alphafetoprotein (AFP) producing gastric cancer (AFP-GC) is very malignant and highly metastatic compared with common gastric cancer. We encountered six patients with AFP-GC. The purpose of this study was to characterize the immunoreactivity of alpha-fetoprotein producing gastric cancer, using a panel of hepatocytic markers, including alpha-fetoprotein, hepatocyte antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD10. Five of 6 cases showed cytoplasmic reactivity for alpha-fetoprotein. Immunoreactivity with a cytoplasmic, membranous, or canalicular pattern, or a mixed pattern was found for polyclonal CEA. Positive immunostaining for hepatocyte antigen was noted in only 2 of 6 cases. Negative immunostaining was found in all 6 patients for CD10. This study demonstrated that most AFP producing gastric cancer, hepatoid or non-hepatoid, were immunoreactive for AFP and p-CEA, but non-reactive for CD10. Therefore, CD-10 might be helpful to distinguish primary hepatocellular carcinoma from AFP-GC when it metastasizes to the liver. In this small series of patients with gastric cancer, AFP production indicated the poor prognosis, regardless hepatoid or non-hepatoid.

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 score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207