MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The importance of MUC1 cellular localization in patients with breast carcinoma

2001· review· en· W2091221538 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMUC1StainingMucinPathologyMedicineCarcinomaImmunohistochemistryLymph nodeBreast cancerBreast carcinomaCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The MUC1 mucin is present on the apical surface of normal secretory epithelia. In breast carcinoma, MUC1 expression is variable in amount and cellular localization, the significance of which is controversial. The authors undertook a detailed analysis of staining pattern combined with a comprehensive literature review to better understand the role of MUC1 in breast carcinoma. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with breast carcinoma were examined for MUC1, beta-catenin, and E-cadherin staining patterns. These data were compared with data from 25 articles from the literature examining the expression of MUC1 in breast carcinoma. RESULTS: All invasive carcinomas showed some MUC1 staining. In invasive ductal carcinomas, MUC1 was detected in the apical membrane (15%), cytoplasm (93%), or circumferential membrane (13%), with 81% of tumors showing a mixture of patterns. Tumors with low overall MUC1 expression (< or = 50% positive tumor cells) had a higher nuclear grade than tumors with high overall MUC1 expression (> 50%; P = 0.01). Tumors with high and low cytoplasmic expression had no difference in nuclear grade (P > 0.3). Circumferential membrane staining was correlated with positive lymph node status (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: In the literature, similar findings prevailed in which overall MUC1 expression was increased in lower grade (10 of 14 studies), estrogen receptor positive (8 of 13 studies) tumors and was associated with a better prognosis (8 of 13 studies). High cytoplasmic staining was associated with a worse prognosis, an association that was not explained by differences in histologic grade. Thus, the presence of MUC1 in the majority of tumor cells is associated with better differentiated tumors and with an improved prognosis. However, aberrantly localized MUC1 in the tumor cell cytoplasm or nonapical membrane is associated with a worse prognosis.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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