p53 and MIB-1 Immunohistochemistry as Predictors of the Clinical Behavior of Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: P53 expression and increased MIB-1 proliferation index have been shown to correlate with invasive behavior in pituitary adenomas. The purpose of this study was to determine whether these indices could be used to predict a higher likelihood of recurrence in clinically nonfunctional pituitary adenomas and thus guide adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Fifty-one clinically nonfunctional pituitary adenomas were selected from the database at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Center between the years 1990-1998. Included were 32 nonrecurrent and 19 recurrent adenomas. RESULTS: The mean initial labelling index for p53 in nonrecurrent tumours was 0.38% (0-1.58%), while it was 0.46% (0-3.65%) for recurrent adenomas. The mean initial MIB-1 index for nonrecurrent tumours was 1.63% (0.08-9.36%), while for recurrent tumours it was 1.92% (0-7.76%). The percentage of p53 positive adenomas was 66% for nonrecurrent tumours and 68% for recurrent tumours. None of the differences in the labelling indices between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups was statistically significant. As 12 patients (38%) in the nonrecurrent group had undergone radiotherapy as initial adjuvant therapy after surgery and none of the recurrent group had done so, patients who did not receive radiotherapy in the nonrecurrent group were analyzed separately. Again, none of the differences in the labelling indices between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups was statistically significant when the effect of radiotherapy was removed from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate no statistical difference in the p53 or MIB-1 labelling indices between recurrent and nonrecurrent nonfunctional pituitary adenomas. Concern should be raised in attaching too much clinical significance to these labelling indices, especially with respect to p53 as a predictor of the clinical behavior of nonfunctional pituitary adenomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".