MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093259391 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0b013e3181d55597

WT1 Immunoprofiling and Comparison of Malignant Mullerian Mixed Tumors of The Female Genital Tract

2010· article· en· W2093259391 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Franko, Anthony M. Magliocco, Quili Duan, Máire A. Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyBiologyStromal cellHeterologousStainingMalignancyImmunohistochemistryHomologous chromosomeLeiomyosarcomaEndometriumMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A malignant Mullerian mixed tumor (MMMT) is a biphasic homologous or heterologous malignancy of the female genital tract. WT1 (Wilms tumor 1) is both a tumor suppressor gene and oncogene overexpressed in the nuclei of some gynecologic carcinomas. Expression in MMMT is incompletely described. Whole sections from 16 MMMTs were stained with WT1 (N terminus) using a standard immunoperoxidase technique. There were 7 heterologous and 9 homologous tumors and 10 were endometrial, 5 were ovarian, and 1 was of peritoneal origin. The tissue and cell staining pattern and score (intensity by amount) were evaluated and correlated with the tumor subtype and anatomic location. Among the 16 tumors, 81.3% showed mostly stromal and cytoplasmic staining and a score of 3 or 6. Staining was positive in 80% of the endometrial and ovarian tumors and the 1 peritoneal tumor and in all heterologous and 66.7% of the homologous tumors. The immunoprofile correlated with tumor subtype but not with anatomic location. Stromal and epithelial staining was more frequent (83.3%) in homologous tumors and differed significantly (P=0.009) from the heterologous types where stromal staining prevailed (85.7%). MMMT is another genital tract malignancy which can over express WT1 and the immunoprofile may assist in tumor subtyping.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207