Endogenous biotin expression in renal and testicular tumors and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine endogenous biotin levels in tumour specimens collected from patients with renal and testicular tumours and compare them to the surrounding non-neoplastic surgical margin. METHODS: Frozen samples were obtained from the Ontario Tumour Bank. Renal and testicular tumour tissue were included in this study. Normal tissue from the negative surgical margins of each tumour served as a control. Biotin detection in tissue specimens was determined using immunohistochemistry (IHC). RESULTS: Specimens collected from 56 patients (36 men and 20 women) were included in this study. Histopathology of the 52 renal tumours included 31 (60%) conventional type RCC, 5 (10%) chromophobe RCC, 5 (10%) papillary RCC, 1 (2%) oncocytoma and 10 (19%) upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UC). The 4 testicular tumours included 1 seminomatous (25%) germ cell tumour and 3 (75%) non seminomatous germ cell tumours. CONCLUSION: No biotin signal was perceived in all tested tumour samples. Endogenous biotin expression was detected in the matching non-neoplastic surgical margin of tested renal tissues. This lack of staining may prove to be a valuable tool in future studies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".