Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma in Women: A Study of 75 Cases With Emphasis on Their Morphologic Spectrum and Differential Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-five malignant mesotheliomas of the peritoneum in women were reviewed to highlight their morphologic spectrum. The patients ranged from 17 to 92 (mean, 47.4) years of age. The clinical presentation was usually abdominal or pelvic pain, abdominal swelling (sometimes due to ascites), or a pelvic mass. On microscopic examination, the majority of the tumors had only an epithelial morphology, but 4 were biphasic and 1 was sarcomatoid. The most common epithelial patterns were tubular and papillary (which often coexisted), but 5 tumors were purely diffuse; 2 had cells with abundant glassy eosinophilic cytoplasm (so-called deciduoid mesothelioma). The cells in the tubular and papillary patterns were generally cuboidal with scant to moderate amounts of eosinophilic cytoplasm. Nuclear atypia was usually only mild, although a minority of cases had moderate or even, occasionally, severe atypia. Many tumors had foci that, viewed in isolation, resembled so-called well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma, and accordingly that diagnosis should be made cautiously. Unusual features were lymphoid follicles (13 cases), striking myxoid stroma (5 cases), prominent foamy histiocytes (5 cases), and a striking vascular proliferation (1 case). The varied morphology of peritoneal malignant mesotheliomas may raise a broad differential diagnosis, but in most cases the resemblance to other tumors is limited. Histochemistry, immunohistochemistry, and electron microscopy may provide important aid, particularly when tissue is limited, but should be needed only occasionally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".