MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071162200 · doi:10.1309/udyanq6xtk6uutxq

Endometrial Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma

2007· article· en· W2071162200 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Zeina Ghorab, Nadia Ismiil, Ida Ackerman, Gillian Thomas, Lisa Barbera, Al Covens, Mahmoud A. Khalifa

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphovascular invasionMedicineMyometriumHysterectomyAdenocarcinomaPathologyGynecologyMetastasisUterusInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed 827 consecutive cases of pure endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EEA) treated by hysterectomy to update the distribution of pathologic features. Tumor grade (reported in a 2-tiered system), depth of myometrial invasion, presence of cervical involvement, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and evidence of extrauterine disease were recorded.The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 30-94 years). The tumor was high grade in 94 cases (11.4%), invaded into the outer half of the myometrium in 249 (30.1%), was positive for cervical involvement in 171 (20.7%), and was positive for LVI in 182 (22.0%). Lymph nodes (sampled in 85 cases) were positive in 13 (1.6%), and ovarian metastases were present in 15 cases (1.8%). High tumor grade was significantly associated with deep myometrial invasion (P > .0001), cervical involvement (P = .0065), and LVI (P > .0001).EEA manifests most commonly with low tumor grade and without deep myometrial invasion. High tumor grade is significantly associated with deep myometrial invasion, cervical involvement, and LVI.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207