ERG Expression in Prostate Needle Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the prognostic and diagnostic value of ERG immunohistochemistry (IHC) in prostate needle biopsy when combined with AMACR-CK5/6. ERG IHC was assessed in 119 consecutive prostate needle biopsies where the dual-stain AMACR-CK5/6 IHC was ordered and in 16 cases with a Gleason score (GS) ≥7. IHC results were evaluated in prostate carcinoma (PCA), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), HGPIN with adjacent atypical glands (PINATYP), atypical/suspicious (ASAP) foci, and benign PCA mimickers. GS, HGPIN, extraprostatic extension, perineural invasion, bilateralism of PCA, largest percent of core, and the overall percent of tissue involved by PCA were recorded. ERG was detected in 36% of PCA, 27% of HGPIN, 13% of ATYP/PINATYP, and none of benign mimickers. ERG-positive HGPIN was strongly associated with ERG-positive PCA in the same core compared with ERG-negative HGPIN (P<0.0001). Positive ERG expression in PCA was inversely related to GS and showed trends toward association with higher volume and bilateral disease. ERG was more specific for PCA than AMACR (0.87 vs. 0.23), but less sensitive (0.36 vs. 0.95). In conclusion, ERG IHC is of limited additional diagnostic value when added to AMACR and CK5/6. ERG expression is inversely related to GS and is associated with bilateral involvement and higher PCA tumor volume. ERG-positive HGPIN is strongly associated with the presence of PCA in the same core. Studies investigating the prognostic value of ERG in HGPIN should be implemented to address whether patients with ERG-positive HGPIN are at increased risk for subsequent PCA development.
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 | 0.001 | 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".