MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for the Detection of t(X;18)(p11.2;q11.2) in a Synovial Sarcoma Tissue Microarray Using a Breakapart-Style Probe

2005· article· en· W2065933998 on OpenAlexaff
Jefferson Terry, Todd Barry, Douglas E. Horsman, Forrest D. Hsu, Allen M. Gown, David G. Huntsman, Torsten O. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Molecular Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCISHSynovial sarcomaChromogenic in situ hybridizationFluorescence in situ hybridizationChromosomal translocationMolecular biologyTissue microarrayIn situ hybridizationFish <Actinopterygii>SarcomaDigoxigeninPathologyBiologyGeneChromosomeMedicineImmunohistochemistryGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synovial sarcomas (SSs) account for 5% of soft tissue tumors and carry a balanced translocation t(X;18)(p11.2;q11.2), detectable in over 90% of cases. This translocation brings together portions of two genes: SYT and SSX. Detecting interruption of the SYT gene on chromosome 18 would be useful as a diagnostic tool. We describe a scoring method to detect disruption of SYT with breakapart probe fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and the application of this method for identification of SS within a sarcoma tissue microarray. After optimization, SYT disruption was identified in 22 of 23 (96%) of known SS tumor samples but was not in 23 of 23 (100%) of non-SS sarcoma samples. Ten of 11 (91%) blinded test SS tumor samples were also correctly identified. For comparison, commercially available FISH and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) probes were tested. The commercial FISH probes identified SYT disruption in 81% of the SS tumor samples but in none of the non-SS samples. The CISH probes produced signals too weak to interpret. The use of breakapart FISH probes is a relatively quick procedure for detection of synovial sarcoma translocations and can be applied to archival specimens in tissue microarrays.

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)0.001
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic Molecular PathologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207