MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110049629 · doi:10.1177/104063870902100607

Cytokeratin and Vimentin Co-Expression in 21 Canine Primary Pulmonary Epithelial Neoplasms

2009· article· en· W2110049629 on OpenAlexaff
Hilary J Burgess, Moira E. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsShared HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVimentinCytokeratinPathologyImmunohistochemistryIntermediate filamentKeratinKeratin 7BiologyMedicineCellCytoskeleton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-expression of cytokeratin and vimentin has been traditionally associated with a few select tumors. However, this phenomenon is being recognized in a wider range of tumors. Twenty-one canine primary pulmonary epithelial neoplasms were evaluated for the co-expression of cytokeratin and vimentin. The histologic pattern and grade, and an immunohistochemical grade for cytokeratin and vimentin staining, were determined for each neoplasm. Adenocarcinomas predominated, and histologically, most tumors were grade II. All of the neoplasms stained positive for cytokeratin, while only 8 (38%) stained positive for both vimentin and cytokeratin. Papillary adenocarcinomas were consistently vimentin negative. The anaplastic histologic pattern had significantly more vimentin staining than the other histologic patterns. There was no significant difference in histologic grade or grading criteria between those tumors that stained with vimentin and those that did not. The present study established that cytokeratin and vimentin co-expression occurs in canine primary pulmonary epithelial tumors at a similar frequency to human pulmonary neoplasms. Further investigation will be needed to characterize the significance of this finding, particularly with respect to 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207