MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244535131

Immunohistochemical expression of PTTG in brain tumors.

2013· article· en· W2244535131 on OpenAlexaff
Fateme Salehi, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Soniya Sharma, Kálmán Kovács, Ricardo V. Lloyd, Michael D. Cusimano, David G. Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryAstrocytomaPathologyGlioblastomaGliomaMedicineCancer researchBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pituitary tumor-transforming gene (PTTG1) has been implicated in several oncogenic processes. The aim of this study was to determine PTTG expression in brain tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 88 benign and malignant brain tumors. PTTG immunoexpression was evaluated using a scale of 0 to 3. PTTG immunoexpression was nuclear and cytoplasmic in most tumors, except for medulloblastomas and hemangiopericytomas. Expression was highest in medulloblastomas. Higher grade gliomas including glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) IV and astrocytoma III had the highest level of PTTG expression, whereas low-grade gliomas had the lowest levels of PTTG expression. Hemangiopericytomas had the lowest levels of PTTG immunoreactivity, with meningiomas and schwannomas exhibiting similarly low PTTG levels. Nuclear PTTG immunoreactivity was higher than cytoplasmic in higher-grade tumors. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that PTTG immunoexpression is higher in aggressive brain tumors including medulloblastomas, GBM IV, and astrocytoma III, whereas in more benign tumors, PTTG immunoexpression is lower.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207