Neosquamous Epithelium Does Not Typically Arise from Barrett's Epithelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neosquamous epithelium (NSE) can arise within Barrett's esophagus as a consequence of medical or surgical acid reduction therapy, as well as after endoscopic ablation. Morphologic studies have suggested that NSE can develop from adjacent squamous epithelium, submucosal gland ducts, or multipotent progenitor cell(s) that can give rise to either squamous or Barrett's epithelium, depending on the luminal environment. The cells responsible for Barrett's epithelium self-renewal are frequently mutated during neoplastic progression. If NSE arises from the same cells that self-renew the Barrett's epithelium, the two tissues should be clonally related and share genetic alterations; if NSE does not originate in the self-renewing Barrett's, NSE and Barrett's esophagus should be genetically independent. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We isolated islands of NSE and the surrounding Barrett's epithelium from 20 patients by microdissection and evaluated each tissue for genetic alterations in exon 2 of CDKN2A or exons 5 to 9 of the TP53 gene. Nine patients had p16 mutations and 11 had TP53 mutations within the Barrett's epithelium. RESULTS: In 1 of 20 patients, a focus of NSE had a 146 bp deletion in p16 identical to that found in surrounding Barrett's epithelium. The NSE in the remaining 19 patients was wild-type for p16 or TP53. CONCLUSION: Our mutational data support the hypothesis that, in most circumstances, NSE originates in cells different from those responsible for self-renewal of Barrett's epithelium. However, in one case, NSE and Barrett's epithelium seem to have arisen from a progenitor cell that was capable of differentiating into either intestinal metaplasia or NSE.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".