MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157037358 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100015948

SPARC and Vav3 Expression in Meningioma: Factors Related to Prognosis

2013· article· en· W2157037358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Jiang, Yuejia Song, Nan Liu, Chengjun Lin, Shiguang Zhao, Yu Sun, Zhen Zhang, Xiang Fang, Jiping Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeningiomaCyclin D1ImmunohistochemistryMedicinePathologyKi-67GastroenterologyInternal medicineCancerCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Meningiomas account for approximately 24-30% of primary intracranial neoplasms. Histopathologic grade and degree of resection are two major prognostic factors. The aim of this study was to determine the factors associated with the prognosis of meningioma. METHODS: We used immunohistochemistry to analyze the expression levels of Vav3, SPARC, p-Akt, cyclin D1, and Ki-67 in 287 meningiomas of all grades. RESULTS: The expression of Vav3, SPARC, p-Akt, cyclin D1, and Ki- 67 significantly increased with meningioma grade (p<0.01), and was higher in brain-invasive meningiomas compared to non-invasive meningiomas (WHO grade I) (p<0.05). Furthermore, the expression of Vav3, p-Akt, and Ki-67 was higher in recurrent meningiomas compared to non-recurrent meningiomas (WHO grade I) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The expression of Vav3, SPARC, p-Akt, cyclin D1, and Ki-67 in meningiomas appears to correlate with meningioma invasiveness, aggressiveness, and recurrence. Expression de SPARC et de Vav3 dans le méningiome : facteurs reliés au pronostic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207