Revisiting the Immunophenotype of Nephrogenic Adenoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nephrogenic adenoma (NA) is a rare benign lesion of the urinary tract. Although its histogenesis is still debated, several reports suggest that the lesion has a renal tubular cell origin or differentiation. As NA can be difficult to distinguish from malignant conditions such as prostate cancer, there is a need for reliable markers. Unfortunately, it has been reported that NA cells also stained positive for the prostate cancer marker alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase (AMACR). Because all the previous studies have used an avidin-biotin (AB) detection procedure, and because cells with tubular renal differentiation are likely to contain a high level of endogenous biotin, we investigated in NA the expression of several markers including AMACR, using both AB and biotin-free detection systems. We assessed the expression of p63, cytokeratins 7 and 20, CD10 (proximal tubule marker), MUC1 (distal tubule marker), PAX2, and AMACR on 14 NAs (from 6 patients) grouped on a tissue microarray. The tissue microarray also included renal, urothelial, and prostate tissues. Staining was detected using both AB and biotin-free Envision systems. Detection with the AB procedure leads to nonspecific staining in kidney samples and NA. More specific expression was obtained by using the Envision kit, and only CK7, PAX2, and MUC1 remained positive in NA, without any AMACR staining. These findings provide supporting evidence that NA has the differentiation of distal renal tubules, and strongly suggest that AMACR, when detected with a biotin-free procedure, can be used as a reliable marker for distinguishing NA from prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".