Microscopic extraovarian sex cord proliferations: an undescribed phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To report a previously undescribed phenomenon of incidentally detected microscopic proliferations of sex cord cells, often mimicking adult granulosa cell tumour or sex cord tumour with annular tubules, in extraovarian locations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The six cases were in patients aged 23-58 years. The proliferations were located in the fallopian tube in three cases, and in paraovarian connective tissues, the pelvic side wall, and appendiceal serosa (one case each). Microscopically, they were typically composed of well-demarcated nests of regular cells with round/ovoid vesicular nuclei, some containing grooves. Microfollicular and/or cribriform arrangements were present in three cases. In five cases, the sex cord lineage was confirmed by positive staining with inhibin and/or calretinin and other sex cord markers. FOXL2 mutation analysis was performed in one case, but was inconclusive. Bilateral oophorectomies and bilateral cystectomies were performed in three cases and one case respectively; there was no sex cord-stromal neoplasm in the removed ovaries. In the two cases in which the ovaries were not removed, imaging showed no suspicious features. Follow-up in four cases (11 months-6 years) has been uneventful. CONCLUSIONS: The pathogenesis of these microscopic extraovarian sex cord proliferations is unknown, but they may represent non-neoplastic proliferations of embryonic remnants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".