MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079326950 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0b013e31815d05ec

Mammaglobin Expression in the Female Genital Tract: Immunohistochemical Analysis in Benign and Neoplastic Endocervix and Endometrium

2008· article· en· W2079326950 on OpenAlexaff
Kazuya Onuma, David J. Dabbs, Rohit Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocervixMammaglobinPathologyImmunohistochemistryCarcinomaAdenocarcinomaTissue microarrayEndometriumProgesterone receptorMedicineBiologyEstrogen receptorInternal medicineCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammaglobin (MGB), a secretory protein belonging to the uteroglobin/Clara cell protein family, is a sensitive marker for breast carcinoma, but is also reported to be expressed in the female genital tract and its neoplasms. Details of MGB expression pattern and its pathologic significance in the female genital tract have not been systematically studied. To investigate the potential use of MGB in gynecologic pathology practice, we tested MGB expression by immunohistochemistry on 47 endocervical adenocarcinomas (whole tissue sections of 13 invasive and 35 in situ) and 55 endometrial carcinomas (39 endometrioid and 16 nonendometrioid represented on a single tissue microarray). Nonneoplastic endocervical and endometrial tissues were also evaluated for MGB expression. MGB expression was detected in thirty (77%) of 39 of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinomas compared with 4 (31%) of 13 endocervical adenocarcinomas. MGB was mostly negative in nonendometrioid endometrial carcinoma (negative in 14 [88%] of 16). Endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) showed either weak (predominantly) or moderate (occasionally) expression in about 40% of the cases in comparison with strong positivity in benign endocervical glandular epithelium. Reduction of MGB staining was seen in transition from benign epithelium to AIS. These results confirm that MGB is not specific for breast carcinoma, but is also variably expressed in nonneoplastic and neoplastic endocervical and endometrial tissues. Frequent MGB expression in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma is significantly different from nonendometrioid carcinoma. Hormone receptor status is not associated with MGB expression in endometrial carcinomas. Most endocervical adenocarcinomas are negative for MGB, in contrast to mostly positive endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinomas, however, MGB expression alone is not specific enough to distinguish these 2 tumor types. MGB expression is altered in neoplastic endocervical epithelium compared with normal, and may indicate its decreased expression in the process of early carcinogenesis. MGB may be a promising new adjunctive marker in gynecologic pathology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207