MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855995394 · doi:10.5858/2008-132-1231-pppwdt

Practical pituitary pathology: what does the pathologist need to know?

2008· article· en· W1855995394 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. Sylvia

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyContext (archaeology)Pituitary glandAnatomical pathologyMedicineBiologyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The sellar region is the site of frequent pathology. The pituitary is affected by a large number of pathologic entities arising from the gland itself and from adjacent anatomical structures including brain, blood vessels, nerves, and meninges. The surgical pathology of this area requires the accurate characterization of primary adenohypophysial tumors, craniopharyngiomas, neurologic neoplasms, germ cell tumors, hematologic malignancies, and metastases as well as nonneoplastic lesions such as cysts, hyperplasias, and inflammatory disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide a practical approach to the diagnosis of pituitary specimens. DATA SOURCES: Literature review and primary material from the University of Toronto. CONCLUSIONS: The initial examination requires routine hematoxylin-eosin to establish whether the lesion is a primary adenohypophysial proliferation or one of the many other types of pathology that occur in this area. The most common lesions resected surgically are pituitary adenomas. These are evaluated with a number of special stains and immunohistochemical markers that are now available to accurately classify these tumors. The complex subclassification of pituitary adenomas is now recognized to reflect specific clinical features and genetic alterations that predict targeted therapies for patients with pituitary disorders.

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 score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations78
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207