MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978390132 · doi:10.1177/0194599814563517

Lack of Association between Human Herpesvirus and Vestibular Schwannoma

2015· article· en· W1978390132 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjiv Kumar Bhimrao, John A. Maguire, Cathie Garnis, Patrick Tang, Jane Lea, Ryojo Akagami, Brian D. Westerberg

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchwannomaHuman herpesvirus 6ImmunohistochemistryPolymerase chain reactionPathologyVestibular systemTissue microarrayBiologyMedicineVirologyHerpesviridaeVirusGeneViral diseaseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess for the presence of human herpesvirus (HHV) using immunohistochemical and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in surgically excised vestibular schwannoma (VS) samples. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A retrospective laboratory-based study of tumors from patients with vestibular schwannoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) representing sporadic and NF2-associated VS from 121 patients, as well as appropriate positive and negative controls, were studied. TMA sections were immunostained using antibodies directed against HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-3, HHV-4, HHV-5, and HHV-8. PCR was used for the detection of all 8 known human herpesviruses. RESULTS: There was no detectable HHV (HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-3, HHV-4, HHV-5, HHV-8) by immunohistochemistry in any of the 121 cases of sporadic and NF2 cases analyzed. These data were further validated by DNA sequence analyses using PCR in a subset of the VS samples, all of which were found to be negative for all HHV. CONCLUSIONS: The data offer no support for an association between HHV and the development of sporadic or NF2-associated VS in humans.

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)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207