Clinical significance of the RT‐PCR positive sentinel node in melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance of RT-PCR positivity for melanoma markers in the sentinel node remains controversial. Our purpose was to determine whether patients with a histologically negative but RT-PCR positive node were at an increased risk for recurrence than their RT-PCR negative counterparts. METHODS: Thirty-nine adult patients underwent sentinel node biopsies for melanoma between 1998 and 2000. Each sentinel node was bivalved. Half was serially sectioned and examined by routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemistry (IHC; S100, HMB-45, melanA, and tyrosinase). The other half was analyzed by a nested RT-PCR assay for tyrosinase. RESULTS: Patients were followed for recurrence with a mean follow-up of 71.1 months. The odds ratio of recurrence for RT-PCR positive versus RT-PCR negative patients was 1.39 (0.34, 5.62; p = 0.73). Within the histology negative subgroups, the risk of recurrence in the RT-PCR positive group (26.7%) was not significantly different from the risk of recurrence in the RT-PCR negative group (22.2%) (p = 0.33 chi-squared). RT-PCR of the sentinel node was not a predictor for recurrence on multivariate analysis (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Sentinel node RT-PCR positivity did not risk stratify histologically negative melanoma patients beyond routine pathologic examination in this series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".