Expression of p63 Differs in Peritoneal Endometriosis, Endometriomas, Adenomyosis, Rectovaginal Septum Endometriosis, and Abdominal Wall Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although there is evidence that endometriosis results from basal endometrium dislocation, the underlying biology is not fully understood. One protein that plays an important role in regulating epithelial proliferation and differentiation is the 63-kDa membrane protein (p63), which is also a marker of basal and reserve cells in the female genital tract. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether p63 is expressed differently in peritoneal endometriosis, endometriomas, and adenomyosis, as well as in deep endometriotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum and abdominal wall. DESIGN: This study includes a prospective series of consecutive patients (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) from a tertiary care university hospital. Specimens collected from 83 patients (15 peritoneal endometriosis specimens, 22 endometrioma specimens, 36 adenomyosis specimens, and 10 rectovaginal septum/abdominal wall specimens) were evaluated. Diagnostic and operative laparoscopies or laparotomies were performed, and tissue samples were obtained. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate p63 expression. RESULTS: Positivity for p63 was detected in 93.3% of the peritoneal endometriosis specimens, 81.8% of the endometrioma specimens, 36.1% of the adenomyosis specimens, and none of the rectovaginal/abdominal wall endometriosis specimens (P < .001). Distribution of p63 immunostaining in the positive specimens was homogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Endometriotic lesions express p63 differently, and some retain the basal/reserve cell immunophenotype. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the lack of p63 expression in some lesions is related to the extent of the disease, to its clinical behavior, or to exacerbation of the accompanying symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".