Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is currently a controversial issue whether epithelial ovarian cancers arise in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) or the fimbrial epithelium of the oviduct. The hypothesis presented here aims to reconcile these 2 views and provides a possible explanation for 2 questions arising: first, why tumors originating in the fimbriae and OSE, which are parts of different organs, express common features; second, why these epithelia are prone to neoplastic transformation whereas the remaining oviduct and the extraovarian mesothelium are not. We hypothesize that these questions relate to the common origin of the OSE and fimbriae in that region of the embryonic coelomic epithelium, which will eventually link the extraovarian mesothelium to the epithelium of the oviductal ampulla. OSE and fimbriae become separated during embryonic development but, like other transitional, interepithelial junctions in adults, this region might remain incompletely committed and thus prone to neoplastic progression. To define differentiation at the OSE-tubal junction, salpingo-oophorectomy specimens were stained immunohistochemically for mesenchymal differentiation markers of OSE and for epithelial markers and Pax8, characterizing oviductal fimbriae and ampullae. OSE and ampullae were distinctly different, but there was no sharp boundary between OSE and fimbriae. Rather, both mesenchymal and epithelial markers overlapped, and Pax8 and fimbrial epithelial markers diminished distally, near the OSE. The results support the hypothesis that the OSE and fimbriae are parts of a transitional epithelium of common origin rather than 2 independent sources of ovarian cancer, and suggest that their immature, incompletely determined phenotype contributes to their propensity to neoplastic transformation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".