MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demonstration of Her-2 Protein in Cervical Carcinomas

2003· article· en· W2028678591 on OpenAlexaff
Debra S. Heller, Meera Hameed, Seena C. Aisner, Bernadette Cracchiolo, Joan Skurnick, Diana Scott, Dana Settembre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStainingImmunohistochemistryPathologyCervixLymph nodeBreast cancerCervical cancerCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE.: Recently, an immunohistochemical test for her-2-neu has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for evaluation of breast cancer patients who might benefit from treatment with Herceptin (HercepTest). This study was undertaken to evaluate the immunohistochemical staining patterns in cervical cancer and correlate with clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS.: A total of 24 cases of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix were evaluated. Cases were stained using the HercepTest kit according to protocol. Results were graded from 0 to 3+, using the standards set for breast lesions. RESULTS.: A total of 17 cases (70.8%) were negative, 3 cases (12.5%) showed 1+ staining, and 4 cases (16.7%) showed 2+ staining. No cases showed 3+ staining. Higher her-2 staining grade correlated strongly with vaginal margin status. A weak positive correlation was seen between her-2 staining and tumor stage. There was no correlation with tumor grade or histological lymph node status. CONCLUSIONS.: A subset of invasive squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix overexpress her-2 protein. Further studies are needed to correlate with clinical outcome and determine if overexpression of her-2 protein is a marker of cervical carcinoma aggressiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207