Gonadotropic pituitary carcinoma: HER-2/neu expression and gene amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors report on two gonadotropic carcinomas of the adenohypophysis that occurred in a55-year-old man (Case 1) and a 53-year-old woman (Case 2), with signs of mass effect and amenorrhea, respectively. Both lesions were macroadenomas. The tumor in Case 1 metastasized to dura mater, skull, nasal sinus, and larynx 2 years after patient presentation, whereas that in Case 2 spread to vertebral bodies and ribs after a 19-year latency. Histologically, the primary, recurrent, and metastatic lesions in Case 1 featured brisk mitotic activity and high MIB-1 levels as well as p53 labeling indices. Immunoreactivity for HER-2/neu was assessable only in rare neoplastic cells of the second recurrence and in 80% of cells of the dural metastasis. Low-level HER-2/neu gene amplification was evident in the recurrent tumors and metastasis. The sellar and metastatic tumors in Case 2 resembled benign gonadotropic adenoma with oncocytic change; p53 accumulation, HER-2/neu overexpression, and HER-2/neu gene amplification were not present. The results indicate that low-level amplification of the HER-2/neu gene might be associated with pituitary carcinomas in which more aggressive behavior is seen. Further studies are needed to determine whether HER-2/neu plays a role in the pathogenesis of pituitary carcinoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".