Circulating endothelial cells and circulating endothelial precursor cells in patients with osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) have been detected at increased numbers in patients with solid cancers. CECs have not been systematically evaluated in patients with osteosarcoma. PROCEDURE: Patients 12 months to 30 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma were eligible for this prospective cohort study. Patients provided a single blood sample at study entry for CEC quantification by flow cytometry at a single reference laboratory. CECs were defined as CD146+, CD31+, CD45-, and CD133-. CEC progenitor cells (CEPs) were defined as CD146+, CD31+, CD45-, and CD133+. RESULTS: Eighteen patients enrolled (11 males; median age 16 years; range 5-21 years). CEC counts did not differ between patients with osteosarcoma compared to seven pediatric healthy controls (median 645 cells/ml, range 60-5,320 cells/ml vs. 1,670 cells/ml, range 330-4,700 cells/ml, respectively; P = 0.12). CEP counts did not differ between patients compared to controls (median 126 cells/ml, range 0-5,320 cells/ml vs. median 260 cells/ml, range 0-10,670 cells/ml, respectively; P = 0.69). CEC and CEP counts did not correlate with metastatic status, tumor size, or histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: CEC and CEP levels are not increased in patients with osteosarcoma compared to healthy controls. CECs and CEPs do not correlate with clinical features of osteosarcoma. Alternative novel markers of disease burden and response are needed in this disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".