MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318561906 · doi:10.4149/neo_2010_06_590

Endoglin and CD-34 immunoreactivity in the assessment of microvessel density in normal pituitary and adenoma subtypes

2010· article· en· W2318561906 on OpenAlexaff
Fabio Rotondo, Shubham Sharma, B. W. Scheithauer, Éva Horváth, Luis V. Syro, Michael D. Cusimano, Farshad Nassiri, George M. Yousef, Kálmán Kovács

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoplasma · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoglinAngiogenesisPathologyImmunohistochemistryAdenomaPituitary adenomaCD34Pituitary tumorsMicrovesselPituitary neoplasmMedicinePituitary glandInternal medicineBiologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Vascularization is a prerequisite of tumor growth, invasion and metastasis. In the present work, microvessel density was assessed by quantitating using two different endothelial cell biomarkers, endoglin (CD-105) and CD-34. Fifty endocrinologically active and 36 clinically nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas, all surgically resected, as well as 10 autopsy-derived normal adenohypophyses were investigated by immunohistochemistry. The results showed that in every pituitary adenoma type endoglin, an assumed biomarker of proliferating endothelial cells, immunostained fewer vessels than CD-34 which revealed immunopositivity in all capillaries. Differences in endoglin versus CD-34 immunoexpression indicate varying degrees of vascularity in pituitary adenoma subtypes. The low levels of endoglin immunoexpression in pituitary tumors exposed to long-acting somatostatin analogs and dopamine agonists are consistent with the view that these agents inhibit angiogenesis. KEYWORDS: immunohistochemistry, endoglin, CD34, microvascular density, angiogenesis, pituitary.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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