MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155391972

Changes in estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Her-2/neu status with time: discordance rates between primary and metastatic breast cancer.

2009· article· en· W2155391972 on OpenAlexaff
Reuben Broom, Patricia A. Tang, Christine Simmons, Louise Bordeleau, Anna Marie Mulligan, Frances P. O’Malley, Naomi Miller, Irene L. Andrulis, Darren M. Brenner, Mark Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgesterone receptorEstrogen receptorBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancerMedicineInternal medicineHormone receptorMetastasisEstrogenReceptorCancerPrimary tumorEndocrinologyOncology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Changes in the receptor profile between primary and metastatic breast cancer tissue have been suggested. The degree of hormone receptor discordance in archival paired pathological samples was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Archival data were collected on 100 patients for whom tissue from primary and metastatic sites was available. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Her-2/neu status in the primary and metastasis were compared. RESULTS: The discordance rate for ER was 17.7% (2-sided p=0.0039) with 9.7% of tumours changing from ER-positive to ER-negative and 8.0% changing from ER-negative to ER-positive. The discordance rate for PR was 37.3% (2-sided p<0.0001), with all of these tumours changing from PR-positive to PR-negative. No significant discordance for Her-2/neu was found. CONCLUSIONS: This series suggests that significant discordance exists for hormone receptor status between primary and metastatic breast cancer samples. Loss of PR was particularly frequent.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations153
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207