Histological categorisation of fibrotic cancer stroma in advanced rectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Based on conflicting reports regarding the role of the fibrotic stromal response in cancer development--namely, that a desmoplastic reaction can favour either the host or the tumour--it is clear that the role of the stromal response is varied. We have classified the fibrotic stroma of rectal adenocarcinoma penetrating the muscularis propria, based on histologically identified stromal components. METHODS: Three categories of stroma were used: mature-when the stroma was composed of mature collagen fibres (fine and elongated fibres into multiple layers); intermediate-when keloid-like collagen was intermingled with mature fibres; and immature-consisting of a myxoid stroma in which no mature fibres were included. RESULTS: In a data set of 862 patients, 53% of patients had mature fibrotic cancer stroma, 33% had intermediate stroma, and 15% had immature stroma. Five year survival rates decreased as follows: mature stroma (80%), intermediate stroma (55%), and immature stroma (27%). The adverse tumour phenotype, tumour cell budding (conspicuous isolated cells or small clusters of cancer cells), was observed in the cancer fronts in tumours with unfavourable fibrotic stroma (p<0.0001). Based on multivariate analysis, categorised fibrotic stroma was selected as an independent prognostic parameter (hazard ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.64) together with tumour differentiation. By immunohistochemical examination, as maturation of the fibrotic stroma decreased, stromal T cells became significantly sparser. Furthermore, myofibroblasts were distributed extensively in immature fibrotic stroma compared with mature and intermediate fibrotic stroma. CONCLUSION: The morphological categorisation of fibrotic cancer stroma highlights the role of the stromal response in relation to the behaviour and host immune reactions of rectal adenocarcinoma and would be a useful tool for predicting patient prognostic outcome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".