MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966625603 · doi:10.2310/7070.2003.35293

Expression of p53 in Inverted Papilloma and Malignancy Associated with Inverted Papilloma

2003· article· en· W1966625603 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chetan Gujrathi, Irvin Pathak, Jeremy L. Freeman, L. Sylvia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverted papillomaMalignancyMedicinePapillomaMalignant transformationImmunohistochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of p53 protein in malignant cases of inverted papilloma compared with cases of benign inverted papilloma of the sinonasal tract. DESIGN: Case-control study of archived pathologic material. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Archived pathologic material of cases of malignancy associated with inverted papilloma and controls of benign inverted papilloma were obtained from Mount Sinai Hospital. These were subjected to immunohistochemistry for p53. Clinical correlation was obtained by retrospective chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Staining of pathologic specimens for p53 and survival or recurrence. RESULTS: Four of the five cases of malignancy associated with inverted papilloma demonstrated overexpression of p53. None of the benign cases of inverted papilloma demonstrated overexpression. Only two of the five patients with malignancy associated with inverted papilloma were alive at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Overexpression of p53 may serve as a marker for malignant transformation of inverted papilloma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207