MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574745930

Her2/neu Expression in Wilms' Tumor and Correlation With Histopathologic Findings.

2013· article· en· W1574745930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mashaallah Babashahi, Mitra Mehrazma, Seyyed Javad Nasiri, Farid Azizi Jalilian, Mostafa Rezaei–Tavirani

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilms' tumorMedicineImmunohistochemistryPathologyStromal cellHER2/neuCancerOncologyInternal medicineBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wilms' tumor is an emberyonal tumor arising from remnants of immature renal tissue. Her2/neu is an onco-protein which mediates cellular proliferation, differentiation and survival. METHODS: In the current study, we analyzed Her2/neu expression in 40 Wilms' tumors. The clinico-demographic data of 40 patients with Wilms' tumor were retrieved. Immunohistochemical staining for HER2/neu was performed. Her2/neuimmunoreactivity was evaluated by Canadian Consensus 2007 scoring system. RESULTS: Among the 38 specimens with epithelial component, 68.5% were positive for Her2/neu, whereas there was immunoreactivity in 37% of 38 blastemal, and 12% of 31 stromal components. The Her2/neu expression was significantly higher in early stages (81.5%) than in advanced stages (36.4%) in epithelial component, but not in other components. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that Her2/neuexpression is associated with epithelial cell differentiation accompanied by lower stages of tumor. No significant relationship was found between Her2/neu positivity and tumor size and patient's age and gender.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207