Central giant cell granuloma of the jaws: assessment of cell cycle proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several reports have demonstrated the presence of a high proliferative activity in central giant cell granuloma, raising the possibility that deregulation of the cell cycle may contribute to its pathogenesis. As we identified alterations of cyclin D1 in giant cell tumor of bone, and as there are histologic similarities between central giant cell granuloma and giant cell tumor, we assessed jaw lesions for the presence of similar alterations. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from 29 cases of central giant cell granuloma was assessed for the expression of cyclin D1, cyclin B1, and MIB-1 (Ki-67) using immunohistochemistry. In addition, differential polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to determine whether there was cyclin D1 gene amplification. RESULTS: The cyclin D1 gene copy number appeared to be minimally elevated in 31% of the cases. Cyclin D1 protein overexpression was observed in 28 of 29 cases (96.5%). Immunostaining was present predominantly in the nuclei of the giant cells. Cyclin B1 and MIB-1 immunoreactivity was restricted to the mononuclear cells with no staining present in the giant cells. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclin D1 protein overexpression may be involved in the formation of the giant cells and the pathogenesis of central giant cell granuloma. As the distribution of immunostaining is identical to that observed in giant cell tumor of bone, our results support the possibility that central giant cell granuloma of the jaws and giant cell tumor of bone represent a similar disease process that clinically and histologically may have somewhat different features because of differences in the anatomical site of involvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".