Occult Carcinoma in Prophylactic Oophorectomy Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) is an option for women at increased risk for ovarian carcinoma. In this study the value of intensive pathologic examination of PO specimens and accompanying resected tissues in the identification of occult carcinoma and any association of occult carcinoma with BRCA germline mutation status were ascertained. Specimens from 60 consecutive PO patients, who were not suspected of having any ovarian tumor at the time of surgery, were subjected to standardized, complete pathologic examination in a prospective study over an 8-year period. Extra-ovarian tissues were examined as well, but they were not subject to the same standardized protocol. Any occult carcinoma of the ovaries or fallopian tubes was noted. The BRCA status and follow-up of patients were obtained, if available. Fifty-five of the 60 PO specimens did not show any evidence of malignancy. Of the 32 patients in this group followed for >1 year, all are alive and well. The remaining five patients, all BRCA1 mutation positive, showed occult carcinoma of the ovaries and/or in situ or invasive carcinoma of a fallopian tube. One of these five patients has died of abdominal carcinomatosis; four continue to be well, but follow-up is <4 years in all cases. Occult carcinoma is present in a small proportion of BRCA-positive or unknown PO patients and may be of prognostic significance. The entire ovaries and tubes from PO patients should be submitted for histologic examination to identify malignancy.
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".