MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073370388 · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000000421

Chordoid Gliomas of the Third Ventricle Share TTF-1 Expression With Organum Vasculosum of the Lamina Terminalis

2015· article· en· W2073370388 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Franck Bielle, Chiara Villa, Marine Giry, Anne-Marie Bergemer-Fouquet, Marc Polivka, Alexandre Vasiljevic, Marie‐Hélène Aubriot‐Lorton, Michèle Bernier, Emmanuèle Lechapt, G. Viennet, Véronique Sazdovitch, Charles Duyckaerts, Marc Sanson, Dominique Figarella‐Branger, Karima Mokhtari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchInstitut National Du Cancer
KeywordsLamina terminalisThird ventricleForebrainBiologyPathologyImmunohistochemistryAnatomyMedicineCentral nervous systemNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chordoid glioma of the third ventricle (CG3V) is a rare tumor developing in a stereotyped localization. It has been related to the circumventricular organ of the lamina terminalis, in the anterior part of the third ventricle, but its oncogenesis is poorly understood. TTF-1 transcription factor is involved in the development and adult physiology of the ventral forebrain. We studied the histopathologic and immunohistochemical features of a multicentric series of 17 cases of CG3V. We described additional histologic patterns (solid, fibrosing, and fusiform) to the typical chordoid pattern. TTF-1 was constantly expressed in CG3V, as in developing and adult lamina terminalis. The anti-TTF-1 SPT24 clone was more sensitive than the 8G7G3/1 clone. No mutation of IDH1 R132, IDH2 R172, or BRAF V600 codons was found. We showed TTF-1 as a useful marker for the diagnosis of CG3V and the understanding of its oncogenesis.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207