MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319355456 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000162

Endometrial Carcinomas With Clear Cells

2015· article· en· W2319355456 on OpenAlexaff
Guangming Han, Robert A. Soslow, Stephanie L. Wethington, Douglas A. Levine, Faina Bogomolniy, Philip B. Clement, Martin Köbel, C. Blake Gilks, Deborah F. DeLair

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsPTENSerous fluidKRASMedicineNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologPathologyCarcinomaImmunohistochemistrySerous carcinomaClear cellEndometrial cancerEstrogen receptorProgesterone receptorInternal medicineOncologyCancerBiologyBreast cancerOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial clear cell carcinoma (CC) is an uncommon tumor and often carries a poor prognosis. It has histologic features that overlap with other endometrial carcinomas and is frequently misclassified. Accurate classification is crucial, however, to improve treatment options. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess diagnostic interobserver variability among 5 gynecologic pathologists for tumors originally diagnosed as CC or with a component of CC (n=44); (2) to determine the utility of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor and HNF-1β; and (3) to detect mutations in select genes. Clinical data and morphologic features were also recorded. Agreement among reviewers was only moderate: only 46% of the original CC remained classified as such. After reclassification, estrogen receptor was positive in 8% of CC, 67% of endometrioid carcinomas (EC), and 47% of serous carcinomas (SC). Sensitivities of HNF-1β in CC, SC, and EC were 62%, 27%, and 17%, respectively, whereas specificity for CC versus EC or SC was 78%. Mutations in PIK3CA, PIK3R1, PTEN, KRAS, and NRAS were detected in 41% of 37 cases that had adequate material for study. At least 1 mutation was identified in 33% of CC, 67% of EC, and 33% of SC. This group of patients had poor outcomes: 72% of the patients with follow-up information had died of disease. In summary, this study suggests that the current pool of CC is a heterogeneous group of tumors from the morphologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular point of views and that only a percentage of them represent true CC.

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)0.001
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207