Granulosa Cell Tumors of the Ovary With a Pseudopapillary Pattern: A Study of 14 Cases of an Unusual Morphologic Variant Emphasizing Their Distinction From Transitional Cell Neoplasms and Other Papillary Ovarian Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granulosa cell tumors of the ovary with a pseudopapillary pattern have received only passing mention in the literature. We have reviewed the clinicopathologic features of 10 cases of juvenile granulosa cell tumor and 4 cases of adult granulosa cell tumor with a pseudopapillary pattern. Twelve cases were received in consultation; the referring pathologist favored a diagnosis of a transitional cell neoplasm in 3 of these cases, and a retiform Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor in 2 cases; in most of the remainder, the diagnosis of granulosa cell tumor was considered but uncertainty expressed because of the unusual papillarylike pattern. All 14 tumors were unilateral, and the majority were predominantly cystic, 3 unilocular, and 6 multilocular. Multiple papillary projections lining the cyst wall were noted grossly in 10 cases; these ranged in size from 0.1 to 1.5 cm and were typically soft, edematous, fleshy, or rubbery. Microscopically, pseudopapillae were formed by intracystic cellular projections with surrounding necrotic debris and/or undulating folds of neoplastic cells in the absence of appreciable necrosis. In all tumors, thorough sampling revealed areas with architectural patterns and cytomorphology typical of granulosa cell tumor. Granulosa cell tumors of adult and juvenile type may have a pseudopapillary pattern that can be confused with other ovarian tumors with a papillary architecture. Identification of areas that are more characteristic of granulosa cell tumor resolves most cases, although immunohistochemistry can be used in more problematic tumors. This phenomenon seems to be related to the cystic change that is a feature of many granulosa cell tumors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".