MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gastrointestinal Kaposi’s sarcoma: CD117 expression and the potential for misdiagnosis as gastrointestinal stromal tumour

2008· article· en· W2144944375 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Parfitt, Manuel Rodriguez‐Justo, Roger Feakins, Marco Novelli

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD117GiSTPathologyLamina propriaCD34MedicineImmunohistochemistryStromal cellBiologyStem cellEpithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Gastrointestinal Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) may mimic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) histologically. Studies have shown that KS outside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract may express CD117, an antibody usually used to support a diagnosis of GIST. The aim was to evaluate the clinicopathological features of GI KS, including the expression of CD117 with and without antigen retrieval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fourteen GI KS were assessed histologically, 12 of which were also subjected to immunohistochemistry for CD34, human herpesvirus (HHV) 8, DOG1 and CD117. CD117 immunohistochemistry was performed with and without antigen retrieval. All cases showed an infiltrative spindle cell tumour. Lamina propria infiltration, lymphoplasmacytic inflammation, extravasated red blood cells and haemosiderin were typical histological features. In all cases tumour cells were positive for CD34 and HHV8, but negative for DOG1. CD117 was positive in four of 12 cases without antigen retrieval and 10 of 12 cases with antigen retrieval. CONCLUSIONS: The microscopic distinction of GI KS from GIST can be difficult. Clues that raise the possibility of GI KS include young patient age, a history of immunosuppression, lamina propria infiltration, lymphoplasmacytic inflammation, extravasated red blood cells and haemosiderin deposition. Use of the immunomarkers CD117 (without antigen retrieval), HHV8 and DOG1 may aid in the distinction between GI KS and GIST.

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 score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207