Gastric ciliated metaplasia. A study of 3406 gastrectomy specimens from dwellers of the Atlantic and the Pacific basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ciliated cells in gastrectomies from patients dwelling in the Pacific and Atlantic basins have been reported previously. AIM: To compare all the results in an attempt to explain the findings. METHODS: Sections from 3406 gastrectomies were reviewed: 1966 and 1440 from the Atlantic and Pacific basins, respectively. Ciliated cells and intestinal metaplasia (IM) were recorded; IM was classified into focal or extensive IM. The total number of sections/gastrectomy was noted. RESULTS: In the Atlantic basin, 5% of specimens had ciliated metaplasia (CM); it was more frequent in intestinal carcinoma (IC; 9%) than diffuse carcinoma (DC; 3%) or miscellaneous gastric diseases (MGD; 3%). In the Pacific basin, the frequency of specimens with CM was 29%: it was more frequent in IC (43%) than in DC (16%) or MGD (10%). The difference between the frequency of CM in specimens with IC or with DC/MGD in the Atlantic and the Pacific basins was significant (p < or = 0.05). The presence of CM was influenced by age and the extent of IM in both basins, but not by sex or the number of sections investigated. CONCLUSIONS: CM-apparently an independent microscopic marker-was significantly higher in the Pacific than in the Atlantic basin. Environmental carcinogens involved in the evolution of IM and IC seem to be implicated in gastric ciliogenesis. Carcinogens that differ in nature and/or in strength in both basins might activate the latent natural genes encoding ciliated processes in gastric cells in patients subsequently developing gastric carcinoma, more notably of intestinal type.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".