MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KI-67 IN PITUITARY NEOPLASMS

2009· review· en· W2058740466 on OpenAlexafffund
Fateme Salehi, Anne Agur, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Kálmán Kovács, Ricardo V. Lloyd, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersJarislowsky Foundation
KeywordsMedicineKi-67Pituitary adenomaPituitary tumorsAdenomaPathologyPituitary glandInternal medicineOncologyImmunohistochemistryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KI-67, A MARKER of cellular proliferation, has been studied extensively in pituitary neoplasia. It is of relevance to various clinicopathological parameters, including tumor subtype, size, invasiveness, and recurrence, as well as patient age and sex. Generally, pituitary tumors behaving aggressively have increased Ki-67 labeling indices. Nonetheless, there is considerable overlap in Ki-67 labeling between noninvasive and invasive adenomas as well as between adenomas and pituitary carcinomas. Not only is there no general agreement regarding the relationship of Ki-67 labeling index and tumor invasiveness, but the same is also true of the association with pituitary tumor size, growth fraction, and recurrence. Whereas a number of studies found conclusive associations of Ki-67 labeling indices with aggressive behavior, size, and/or adenoma subtype, others fail to do so. It is evident that discrepant data regarding tumor behavior in part has its basis in nonuniform study criteria. For example, different investigators use varying criteria of tumor invasion and recurrence. Herein, we review the literature relating Ki-67 expression and various other clinicopathological parameters and conclude that uniform definitions and methods, as well as new markers, are key to improved treatment of pituitary 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations134
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207