MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Separation of Benign and Malignant Mesothelial Proliferations

2000· review· en· W2061660794 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesothelial CellPathologyAtypiaMalignancyMedicineStromal cellMesotheliumPeritoneal EffusionPleural cavityPeritoneal cavityEffusionAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The separation of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations has emerged as a major problem in the pathology of the serosal membranes. For both epithelial and spindle cell mesothelial processes, true stromal invasion is the most accurate indicator of malignancy, but stromal invasion is often difficult to assess, especially in small biopsies. In the pleural cavity, deep penetration of a thickened and fibrotic pleura or penetration of mesothelial cells into the fat of the chest wall are good indicators of malignancy; however, superficial entrapment of mesothelial cells and glands by organizing effusions is common in benign reactions and needs to be distinguished from invasion. In the peritoneal cavity, invasion of fat or of organ walls is again the most reliable indicator of malignancy, but entrapment of benign cells in organizing granulation tissue or between fat lobules is frequent and confusing. Proliferations confined to the pleural or peritoneal space, particularly linear arrays of atypical mesothelial cells on the free surface, should not be called malignant in the absence of unequivocal invasion. Cytologic atypia is often not helpful in separating benign from malignant reactions, because benign processes are commonly atypical and mesotheliomas are often deceptively monotonous. Densely packed mesothelial cells within the pleural space are frequent in benign reactions, but densely packed mesothelial cells within the stroma favor a diagnosis of malignancy. Organizing effusions (fibrous pleurisy) typically show zonation with high cellularity and cytologic atypia toward the pleural space and increasing fibrosis with decreasing cellularity and lesser atypia toward the chest wall, whereas sarcomatous (including desmoplastic) mesotheliomas do not demonstrate this type of zonation. Elongated capillaries perpendicular to the pleural surface are seen in organizing effusions but are not a feature of sarcomatous mesotheliomas. The combination of a paucicellular storiform pattern, plus invasion of the stroma (including fat and adjacent tissues), or bland necrosis, overtly sarcomatous foci, or distant metastases, is required for the diagnosis of desmoplastic mesothelioma. Necrosis is usually a sign of malignancy but is occasionally seen in benign mesothelial reactions. Keratin staining is useful in indicating the distribution of mesothelial cells, and particularly in demonstrating penetration of mesothelial cells into the stroma or adjacent structures, but is of no help in separating benign and malignant proliferations because both are keratin-positive. Although both p53 and EMA staining have been proposed as markers of mesothelial malignancy, in our experience they are not helpful for the individual case.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · 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