MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991914845 · doi:10.1097/pap.0000000000000046

Endometrial Stromal Tumors

2014· review· en· W1991914845 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Anatomic Pathology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial stromal sarcomaStromal cellChromosomal translocationSarcomaCancer researchNodule (geology)PathogenesisMedicinePathologyBiologyOncologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial stromal tumors are rare uterine mesenchymal neoplasms that have intrigued pathologists for years, not only because they commonly pose diagnostic dilemmas, but also because the classification and pathogenesis of these tumors has been widely debated. The current World Health Organization recognizes 4 categories of endometrial stromal tumor: endometrial stromal nodule (ESN), low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS), high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (HG-ESS), and undifferentiated uterine sarcoma (UUS). uterine sarcoma. These categories are defined by the presence of distinct translocations as well as tumor morphology and prognosis. Specifically, the JAZF1-SUZ12 (formerly JAZF1-JJAZ1) fusion identifies a large proportion of ESN and LG-ESSs, whereas the YWHAE-FAM22 translocation identifies HG-ESSs. The latter tumors appear to have a prognosis intermediate between LG-ESS and UUS, which exhibits no specific translocation pattern. This review (1) presents the clinicopathologic features of endometrial stromal tumors; (2) discusses their immunophenotype; and (3) highlights the recent advances in molecular genetics which explain their pathogenesis and lend support for a new classification system.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.355 · 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