MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319827626 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0b013e31829c6757

Risk Factors for Recurrence and Prognosis of Low-grade Endometrial Adenocarcinoma; Vaginal Versus Other Sites

2014· article· en· W2319827626 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Moschiano, Denise Barbuto, Christine Walsh, Kanwaljit Singh, Elizabeth D. Euscher, Andres A. Roma, Rouba Ali‐Fehmi, Elizabeth E. Frauenhoffer, Delia Pérez‐Montiel, Insun Kim, Bojana Djordjevic, Anaís Malpica, Sung Ran Hong, Elvio G. Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphovascular invasionEndometrial cancerAdenocarcinomaLymph nodeDissection (medical)Cervical cancerDiseaseHysterectomyCancerInternal medicineSurgeryMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial adenocarcinoma is the most common gynecologic cancer in the United States. The prognosis is generally favorable, however, a significant number of patients do develop local or distant recurrence. The most common site of recurrence is vaginal. Our aim was to better characterize patients with vaginal recurrence of low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with respect to associated tumor parameters and clinical outcome. We compiled 255 cases of low-grade (FIGO Grade I or II) endometrioid adenocarcinoma on hysterectomy specimens with lymph node dissection. A total of 113 cases with positive lymph nodes or recurrent disease were included in our study group. Seventy-three cases (13 Grade 1, 60 Grade 2) developed extravaginal recurrence and 40 cases (7 Grade 1, 33 Grade 2) developed vaginal recurrence. We evaluated numerous tumor parameters including: percentage myoinvasion, presence of microcystic, elongated, and fragmented pattern of myoinvasion, lymphovascular space invasion, and cervical involvement. Clinical follow-up showed that 30% (34/113) of all patients with recurrent disease died as a result of their disease during our follow-up period, including 31 (42.5%) with extravaginal recurrence and 3 (7.5%) with primary vaginal recurrence (P=0.001). The 3 patients with vaginal recurrence developed subsequent extravaginal recurrence before death. Vaginal recurrence patients show increased cervical involvement by tumor, but lack other risk factors associated with recurrent disease at other sites. There were no deaths among patients with isolated vaginal recurrence, suggesting that vaginal recurrence is not a marker of aggressive tumor biology.

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)0.008
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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