Histomorphological Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Malignancy Diagnosed by Endoscopy with Special Reference to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor by Immunohistochemistry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The digestive tract is a major site of cancer in humans; however, there are great differences in incidence among the component sites from the oesophagus to the anus. Furthermore, a number of the histologic types of tumors at these sites differ in their incidence and prognosis. Biopsy samples of 55 patients with suspicious symptoms were taken from June 2012 to June 2014.They were subject to histopathological evaluation. Immunohistochemical evaluation was done to demonstrate EGFR positivity. A total of fifty two cases were viable for interpretation. Of the 52 cases, 19 were diagnosed as malignancies, 18 of which were adenocarcinomas and one was malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumor. (GIST). Of the 18 adenocarcinoma cases, eight were gastric, ten were colorectal. Majority of the patients with malignancy were between 61-70 years. EGFR was overexpressed in 25% of gastric adenocarcinomas and 30% of colorectal adenocarcinomas. Majority of the tumors showed moderate positivity with some showing strong membrane positivity as well. Finally, it is important to stress that failure to detect a prognostic significance for EGFR in any one cancer type does not necessarily preclude patients from benefiting from anti-EGFR therapies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".