Sampling Strategies for Tissue Microarrays to Evaluate Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tissue microarrays (TMA) enable rapid analysis of biomarkers in large-scale studies involving archival tumor specimens, however, their utility in heterogeneous tumors such as ovarian cancer is limited. METHODS: In this study, immunohistochemical analysis was done on TMAs comprised of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) to estimate the prevalence of loss of expression of three mismatch repair proteins. TMAs were initially created using cores sampled from the center of donor tissue blocks from 59 EOC cases. Full sections were subsequently created and levels of expression were compared between tissues sampled from the central portion versus the periphery. Follow-up analyses were done by obtaining cores from the periphery of up to five additional donor blocks per case. A linear mixed model for each protein was used to investigate differences between results from the initial and follow-up blocks. RESULTS: In the original TMAs created using centrally sampled cores, loss of mismatch repair expression was noted in 17 (29%) of the 59 cases. By comparison, analyses from peripherally sampled cores revealed loss of expression in only 6 of these 17 cases. For each protein, significant differences (P < 0.05) were detected between results from the initial donor block and the majority of the follow-up blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigations, based on EOC, suggest that sampling variability in protein expression may result when TMAs are used. Thus, at least for EOC, it is important to preferentially sample from the periphery of tumor blocks where exposure to tissue fixatives is optimal.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".