Expression of HLA-I, CD8, and CD4 and Their Clinical Significance in Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The local tissue immune status may play a role in the progression of cervical cancer. The aim of our study is to examine the expression of HLA-I, CD8 and CD4 in various cervical diseases and investigate their association with cervical cancer. Methods : We chose the tissues of cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), chronic cervicitis and peri-cancer tissues, and then detected the expression of HLA-I, CD8 and CD4 using SP immunohistochemistry. The associations of the expression of HLA-I, CD8 and CD4 with the clinicopathologic profiles of the patients were analyzed. Results : The percentage of positive tissue staining of HLA class I antigen in cervical cancer, CIN, chronic cervicitis and peri-cancer tissues were 40%, 95%, 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively. And the percentage of CD8 in various tissues was 35%, 95%, 100% and 100.0%, respectively. The positive tissue staining percentage of CD4 in the tissues above was 45%, 80%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The percentage of positive tissue staining of HLA-I, CD8 and CD4 were significantly lower in tissues of cervical cancer when compared with oth er tissues (P < 0.01). No correlation between positive tissue staining of HLA-I, CD8, and CD4 and clinicopathologic profiles was observed (P > 0.05). A positive correlation was found between HLA-I and CD8 expression (Spearman's correlation r s = 0.913, P < 0.001). Conclusions : The expression of HLA-I, CD8 and CD4 are down-regulated or deleted in CIN and cervical cancer, and they may play important roles in the development and progression of CIN and cervical cancer. World J Oncol. 2011;2(1):10-15 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/wjon286w Â
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 | 0.001 | 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".