Expression and clinical significance of pepsinogen C in uveal melanomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: we investigated by immunohistochemistry the pepsinogen C (pepC) expression in uveal melanomas and analyzed the possible relationship to clinicopathological parameters and prognostic significance. METHODS: We studied 22 patients who had undergone enucleation of the eyeball or local tumor resection for uveal melanoma. The specimens were immunostained for pepC on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections. Sex, age, tumor location, histological type, local invasion, postoperative treatment and metastasis were evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven tumors (50%) were positive for pepsinogen C. The percentage of pepC-positive tumors was significantly higher in uveal melanomas with scleral invasion than in those without scleral invasion (p<0.01). PepC expression was significantly associated with a shortened overall survival (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that pepsinogen C may be expressed by uveal melanoma and suggest that this protein could be considered as a new, unfavorable prognostic factor in these tumors. (Int J Biol Markers 2004; 19: 240-4).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".