MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312970880 · doi:10.1097/pai.0000000000000202

Ki-67 Membranous Staining: Biologically Relevant or an Artifact of Multiplexed Immunofluorescent Staining

2015· article· en· W2312970880 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Wang, Zhengyu Pang, G. Clarke, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Kela Liu, Alison Cheung, Robert J. Filkins, Martin J. Yaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainingCyaninePolyclonal antibodiesMolecular biologyAntibodyImmunohistochemistryPrimary and secondary antibodiesChemistryMultiplexCytokeratinPathologyBiologyMedicineImmunologyFluorescence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the process of developing a multiplex of 8 common breast cancer biomarkers (Her2/neu, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, aldehyde dehydrogenase-1, NaK-ATPase, cytokeratin 8/18, and myosin smooth muscle) on a single formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded slide using a sequential staining, imaging, and dye bleaching technology developed by General Electric Company, membranous Ki-67 staining was observed and colocalized with Her2/neu staining. Using immunohistochemistry as gold standards, we discovered that membranous Ki-67 was an artifact caused by the binding of cyanine 5-conjugated rabbit polyclonal Ki-67 antibody to a secondary cyanine 3-conjugated donkey anti-rabbit antibody which was previously applied and bound to rabbit Her2/neu antibody in our multiplexing experiment. After blocking with rabbit serum, a successful protocol for 8 biomarker multiplexing without cross-reactivity of antibodies from the same species was developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207