Uterine Carcinosarcomas and Grade 3 Endometrioid Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical behavior and outcome of uterine carcinosarcomas and grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas. METHODS: Data on patients with grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas and uterine carcinosarcomas, from 1988 to 2004, was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Mortality was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. RESULTS: The cohort included 8,986 women with 5,024 (56%) grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas and 3,962 (44%) uterine carcinosarcomas. Women with uterine carcinosarcomas were older (aged 70 years compared with 66 years; P<.001) and more often nonwhite (23% compared with 15%; P<.001). These women presented with more advanced disease (stage III/IV 41% compared with 31%; P<.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that uterine carcinosarcoma histology, advanced age, nonwhite race, and advanced stage were independent predictors of poor survival. Cancer-specific mortality was 45% lower in women with grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas (hazard ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.6). The 5-year cancer-specific survival was lower for women with uterine carcinosarcoma for each disease stage. Survival for stage IC was 38% (95% CI 33-45%) for uterine carcinosarcoma compared with 68% (95% CI 63-73%) for grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma. For stage III, survival was 22% (95% CI 19-26%) for uterine carcinosarcoma compared with 45% (95% CI 41-49%) for grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Carcinosarcomas present at more advanced stage and have worse survival than grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas. Carcinosarcomas may represent a distinct biologic entity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".