Infrequent Immunohistochemical Expression of Napsin A in Endometrial Carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many studies described napsin A as a specific diagnostic marker that aids in differentiating lung adenocarcinomas from other respiratory tumors. This study describes the expression phenotype of napsin A in endometrial neoplasms, it investigates the relationship between this expression profile and the clinicopathologic parameters, and assess its utilization as an independent predictive marker. METHODS: A total of 76 cases of previously diagnosed endometrial carcinoma (including 53 endometrioid adenocarcinomas, 6 endometrioid adenocarcinomas with squamous differentiation, 9 serous adenocarcinomas, 6 clear cell adenocarcinomas, and 2 malignant mixed mullerian tumors) and 30 tissue samples of noncancerous endometrium (including 16 proliferative endometriums, 10 secretory endometriums and 4 endometrial polyps) were retrieved from the archives of Pathology Department at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. For napsin A detection, tissue microarrays and immunostaining were used. RESULTS: A total number of 12 (15.78%) cases were positive for napsin A immunostaining. Brown granular cytoplasmic expression of napsin A was detected in 9.4% of endometrioid adenocarcinomas, 16.7% of endometrioid adenocarcinomas with squamous differentiation, 22.2% of papillary serous endometrial carcinomas, and 66.7% of clear cell carcinomas. Three (10%) control cases showed similar granular cytoplasmic expression. Positive napsin A immunostaining was more frequent in clear cell carcinoma, and there is a significant association between positive napsin A immunostaining and clear cell carcinoma (P-value=0.007). Significant associations have been found also between napsin A expression and older ages (above 60 y) and higher stage (IVB), the P-values of which were 0.035 and 0.043, respectively, but not with the tumor recurrence or survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although napsin A is infrequently expressed in endometrial carcinomas, positive results of napsin A immunostaining in endometrial neoplasms might support the diagnosis of clear cell carcinoma when the pathologic differential diagnosis includes other histologic subtypes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".