MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EGFR and Ki-67 expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma using tissue microarray technology

2010· article· en· W2083293436 on OpenAlexaff
Luı́s Monteiro, Márcio Diniz Freitas, Tomás García‐Caballero, Jerónimo Forteza, Máximo Fraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Pathology and Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal cellTissue microarrayMicroarrayPathologyCarcinomaMicroarray analysis techniquesCancer researchGene expressionGene expression profilingMedicineBiologyImmunohistochemistryGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate the use of tissue microarrays (TMA) in oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) to analyse epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and Ki-67 expression. We also analysed the relationship that the expression of these markers may have with clinical, pathological and survival variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 39 unselected patients diagnosed and treated for OSCC. We analysed Ki-67 and EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded surgical specimens. Whole sections (WS) were compared with double 1.5 mm core-tissue microarrays. RESULTS: High EGFR expression was observed both on TMA (in 98% of the cases) and WS (in 100% of the cases) with substantial agreement kappa value (0.720). EGFR expression was not significantly associated with clinical, pathological and survival variables on TMA and WS. Ki-67 analysis showed a Spearman correlation of 0.741 with a Ki-67 mean labelling index of 45% in TMA and 56.8% in WS. We found a significant relationship between gender and Ki-67 labelling index on WS (P = 0.022) and TMA (P = 0.002). Clinical stage was the only parameter in multivariate analysis that had a significant predictive value. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that dual 1.5 mm core TMA is a valid, rapid, economical and tissue-saving way to study OSCC biopsies and that it presents strong correlation with the WS. EGFR overexpression in OSCC suggests that these tumours may be a candidate for therapy investigation directed to EGFR.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral Pathology and MedicineSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207