MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054608890 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e318220697f

Grading of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Should be Based on Nucleolar Prominence

2011· article· en· W2054608890 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Delahunt, Dianne Sika‐Paotonu, Peter B. Bethwaite, T. William Jordan, Cristina Magi‐Galluzzi, Ming Zhou, Hemamali Samaratunga, John R. Srigley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Renal cell carcinomaNucleolus organizer regionPathologyCarcinomaClear cell renal cell carcinomaMedicineBiologyNucleolus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuhrman grading of renal cell carcinoma focuses on features of nuclear size, nuclear shape, and nucleolar prominence. Despite the reported widespread usage of Fuhrman grading in clinical studies, there is debate as to the prognostic significance and reproducibility of its criteria. It has been noted that many pathologists rely on assessment of nucleolar prominence alone when grading renal cell carcinoma; however, the validity of this remains unconfirmed. This study was undertaken to determine the relationship of the 3 morphologic components of the Fuhrman grading system with one another and to determine which, if any of these, can be correlated with outcome for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. One hundred twenty-one organ-confined clear cell renal cell carcinomas were examined in this study. Parameters of nuclear size (area, major axis, perimeter) and nuclear shape (shape factor, nuclear compactness) were assessed by image analysis, whereas nucleolar prominence was assigned (grades 1 to 3) using the criteria of Fuhrman. On the basis of the predominant grade present, there were 17 nucleolar grade 1, 90 nucleolar grade 2, and 14 nucleolar grade 3 tumors. When the high-power field in each tumor with the worst nucleolar grade was assessed, there was 1 nucleolar grade 1, 68 nucleolar grade 2, and 52 nucleolar grade 3 tumors. Predominant and worst nucleolar grade correlated with all measures of nuclear size, but not nuclear shape. Worst nucleolar grade and all parameters of nuclear size were significantly associated with outcome. On multivariate analysis, worst nucleolar grade retained a significant association with survival when modeled with nuclear area. Neither worst nucleolar grade nor major nuclear axis/nuclear perimeter was significantly associated with survival when modeled together. In this study, we have shown that worst nucleolar grade and nuclear size are of prognostic significance for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We have further shown the association of worst nucleolar grade with outcome to be independent of nuclear area, whereas it is a dependent variable when tested against other parameters of nuclear size. These findings indicate that worst nucleolar grading alone is a valid grading parameter for clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations129
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207