Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anal gland carcinoma is a rare entity. The authors conducted a joint study of cases coded as definite or possible anal gland carcinoma from the archives of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the Canadian Reference Center for Cancer Pathology. METHODS: Seven cases of potential anal gland carcinoma were identified from the Canadian files and 12 from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology archives. Of these 19 cases, 14 had adequate material to allow clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical analysis. RESULTS: Seven of these 14 cases met a modified World Health Organization (WHO) definition of anal gland carcinoma. The mean age of these patients was 66 years (range, 60-72 years), with a male-to-female ratio of 6:1. The tumors were composed of haphazardly dispersed, small glands with scant mucin production that invaded the wall of the anorectal area with no obvious intraluminal component observed clinically or microscopically. Immunohistochemical studies were performed on all seven of these cases, revealing cytokeratin (CK) 7+/CK 20- expression in six cases, and CK 7+/CK 20+ expression in one case. The remaining seven cases showed no intraluminal component but did not meet a modified WHO definition of anal gland carcinoma. This group included three mucinous adenocarcinomas (two clinically arising in anal fistulas), all of which were CK 7+/CK 20+, and a rectal-type adenocarcinoma that was CK 7-/CK 20+. There was also a tumor interpreted as probable rectal-type adenocarcinoma that was CK 7+/CK 20+, and a tumor interpreted as probable squamous cell carcinoma that was CK 7-/CK 20-. The seventh tumor in this group, which could not be classified, was CK 7+/CK 20-. CONCLUSIONS: A useful and discriminating definition of anal gland carcinoma is an anal canal tumor composed of haphazardly dispersed, small glands with scant mucin production invading the wall of the anorectal area without an intraluminal component. The glands are positive for CK 7.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".