MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337786508 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djv428

Synchronous Endometrial and Ovarian Carcinomas: Evidence of Clonality

2015· article· en· W2337786508 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Anglesio, Yi Kan Wang, Madlen Maassen, Hugo M. Horlings, Ali Bashashati, Janine Senz, Robertson Mackenzie, Diljot Grewal, Hector Li-Chang, Anthony N. Karnezis, Brandon S. Sheffield, Melissa K. McConechy, Friedrich Kommoss, Florin‐Andrei Taran, Annette Staebler, Sohrab P. Shah, D. Wallwiener, Sara Y. Brucker, C. Blake Gilks, Stefan Kommoss, David G. Huntsman

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvaryCarcinomaOvarian carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)EndometriumOncologyEndometrial cancerMetastasisOvarian cancerBiologyInternal medicineCancer researchMedicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many women with ovarian endometrioid carcinoma present with concurrent endometrial carcinoma. Organ-confined and low-grade synchronous endometrial and ovarian tumors (SEOs) clinically behave as independent primary tumors rather than a single advanced-stage carcinoma. We used 18 SEOs to investigate the ancestral relationship between the endometrial and ovarian components. Based on both targeted and exome sequencing, 17 of 18 patient cases of simultaneous cancer of the endometrium and ovary from our series showed evidence of a clonal relationship, ie, primary tumor and metastasis. Eleven patient cases fulfilled clinicopathological criteria that would lead to classification as independent endometrial and ovarian primary carcinomas, including being of FIGO stage T1a/1A, with organ-restricted growth and without surface involvement; 10 of 11 of these cases showed evidence of clonality. Our observations suggest that the disseminating cells amongst SEOs are restricted to physically accessible and microenvironment-compatible sites yet remain indolent, without the capacity for further dissemination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations228
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207