Overexpression of Estrogen Receptors in Columnar Cell Change and in Unfolding Breast Lobules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Columnar cell change (CCC) is common and has often been considered of little clinical interest. However, some investigators have suggested that it may be a marker for increased risk of breast cancer. To see whether CCC is subject to hormonal influences, the distribution of estrogen receptors (ER) was determined in a series of breast specimens showing this change. The cases came from 51 women age 35-80 years (mean 52 years) with the following associated findings: 27 carcinomas and 24 benign lesions. Consecutive sections were recut from the paraffin blocks: one was stained with hematoxylin-eosin and the other was immunostained for ER. Since CCC is the initial step in unfolding of lobules, a process which can evolve into various conditions, including cyst formation and epithelial hyperplasia, the distribution of ER was also evaluated in the latter conditions. In normal lobules, only a minority of epithelial cells were reactive for ER. In contrast, the cells showing columnar change uniformly expressed strong nuclear reactivity. In lobules undergoing unfolding with the formation of cysts, the lining epithelial cells remained positive even when they became cuboidal or flattened. The pattern of reactivity differs in the two types of hyperplasia. In hyperplasia of the usual type, the pattern was heterogeneous, with a majority of negative cells mixed with cells showing varying degrees of positivity. In columnar cell hyperplasia, the stratified epithelium maintained a strong uniform positivity. It is now recognized that columnar cell lesions include a wide spectrum of changes reaching a point at the upper end where the differential diagnosis is ductal carcinoma in situ. Other studies have shown that advanced CCC lesions with various degrees of hyperplasia and/or atypia are ER positive. The present findings indicate that, from the initial stage of the spectrum, the common columnar cells are strongly ER positive. Moreover, the observation that the lining cells in cysts are positive supports the theory that hormonal factors are involved in the development of fibrocystic changes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".