MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Histomorphological Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Malignancy Diagnosed by Endoscopy with Special Reference to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor by Immunohistochemistry.

2015· article· en· W1992926032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nitya Prabhakaran, Shaista Choudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Pathology and Microbiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryMalignancyEpidermal growth factor receptorPathologyMedicineEpidermal growth factorHuman Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2EndoscopyInternal medicineReceptorCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Pathology and MicrobiologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207