L1CAM Expression is Related to Non-Endometrioid Histology, and Prognostic for Poor Outcome in Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of endometrial carcinomas are classified as Type I endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (EECs) and have a good prognosis. Type II non-endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (NEECs) have a significant worse outcome. Yet, 20 % of the EECs are associated with an unexplained poor outcome. The aim of this study was to determine if L1CAM expression, a recently reported biomarker for aggressive tumor behavior in endometrial carcinoma, was associated with clinicopathological features of EECs. A total of 103 patients diagnosed as EEC at the Radboud University Medical Centre, based on the pathology report were selected. L1CAM status of these tumors was determined, and histologic slides were reviewed by two expert pathologists. L1CAM-positivity was observed in 17 % (18/103). Review of the diagnostic slides revealed that 11 out of these 18 L1CAM-positive tumors (61 %) contained a serous- or mixed carcinoma component that was not initially mentioned in the pathology report. L1CAM-expression was associated with advanced age, poor tumor grade, and lymphovascular space invasion. A worse five year progression free survival rate was observed for patients with L1CAM-positive tumors (55.6 % for the L1CAM-positive group, compared to 83.3 % for the L1CAM-negative group P = 0.01). L1CAM expression carries prognostic value for histologically classified EEC and supports the identification of tumors with a NEEC component.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it