MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976892770 · doi:10.1309/xec7-jmw9-yrm7-4rno

Pax-5 Expression in Nonhematopoietic Tissues

2006· article· en· W1976892770 on OpenAlexaff
Emina Torlakovic, Ana Slipicevic, Chris Robinson, John F. DeCoteau, G. Cecilie Alfsen, Mogens Vyberg, Richa Chibbar, Viví Ann Flørenes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyMesonephric ductBiologyImmunohistochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated 123 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, including neuroendocrine tumors, adult brain, mesonephric tissues, and from various other sites. A pre-B lymphoma cell line, Daudi, and a small cell carcinoma cell line, NCL-H128, were evaluated by Western blot. All tissues were immunostained by mouse monoclonal anti-Pax-5 antibody by using standard, synthetic polymer-based detection methods. Our study describes for the first time distribution of Pax-5 in adult brain tissue, including periaqueductal gray matter of the midbrain, area postrema of the medulla oblongata, and occasional cells of the spinal trigeminal nucleus (caudal nucleus). We confirm that Pax-5 is expressed regularly in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumors but never in well-differentiated classic carcinoid tumors. Pax-5 expression also was found readily in benign and malignant mesonephric tissues and focally in müllerian duct-derived tissues and tumors. Expression of Pax-5 in the Daudi and NCL-H128 cell lines was confirmed by Western blot. Together, these results are important for correct interpretation of results in immunophenotyping of undifferentiated tumors, for diagnosis of mesonephric carcinoma, and, potentially, for correct classification of neuroendocrine tumors in small biopsy samples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207