Detection of Lymphatic Invasion in Primary Melanoma With Monoclonal Antibody D2-40
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the presence of lymphatic invasion in primary cutaneous melanoma using monoclonal antibody D2-40, a marker of lymphatic endothelium, and to correlate the presence of lymphatic invasion with other clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumors. DESIGN: Retrospective melanoma case series study comparing conventional hematoxylin-eosin staining with D2-40 immunostaining for detection of lymphatic invasion. SETTING: Departments of Pathology and Dermatology, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Patients Forty-four consecutive cases of primary cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness greater than 0.75 mm were examined for presence of lymphatic invasion. RESULTS: Seven (16%) of 44 melanomas showed the presence of lymphatic invasion under immunostaining with D2-40. In 2 cases, subepidermal lymphatic involvement was present; in 5 cases lymphatic invasion was noted within the tumor, including 1 case of additional lymphatic invasion at the invasive edge of the tumor. Lymphatic invasion was not detected on routine hematoxylin-eosin staining. We observed a trend in the association between lymphatic invasion and 2 markers of tumor aggressiveness, namely, a deeper Clark level and increased frequency of ulceration, which suggests that lymphatic invasion detected with D2-40 may indicate a poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Immunostaining with D2-40 increases the frequency of detection of lymphatic invasion relative to conventional hematoxylin-eosin staining in primary melanoma. Future outcome data will determine the prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion detected by D2-40 immunostaining.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".