MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2359589636 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000291

Immunohistochemical Profiling of Endometrial Serous Carcinoma

2016· article· en· W2359589636 on OpenAlexaff
Wenqian Chen, Arjumand Husain, Gregg Nelson, Peter Rambau, Shuhong Liu, Cheng‐Han Lee, Sandra Lee, Máire A. Duggan, Martin Köbel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreChinook Regional HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTissue microarrayImmunohistochemistryMSH6Serous fluidPTENSerous carcinomaMedicineCarcinomaMSH2PathologyCDKN2AMLH1Clear cell carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineBiologyCancerOvarian cancerPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayColorectal cancerDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC) is an aggressive neoplasm mainly seen in older women. The objective of this study was to refine immunohistochemical (IHC) panels for the differential diagnoses against endometrial endometrioid grade 3 (EC3), endometrial clear cell, and ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma as well as exploring the prognostic role of selected IHC markers. Fifty-two ESC from a single institution were assessed for 20 IHC markers, including ARID1A, CCNE1, CDKN2A, ERBB2, ESR1, HNF1B, FBXW7, IGF2BP3, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NAPSA, PAX8, PGR, PMS2, PTEN, TFF3, TP53, VIM, and WT1. ERBB2 chromogenic in situ hybridization was evaluated on tissue microarrays. Statistical analysis was performed. All ESC showed aberrant TP53, normal mismatch repair protein, and retained ARID1A and PTEN expression. ESR1 expression was present in 80% of ESC. A combination of TP53, PTEN, and CDKN2A had a sensitivity of 93.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 84%-98%] and specificity of 87.8% (95% CI, 75%-95%) for ESC versus EC3. A combination of NAPSA and ESR1 had a sensitivity of 97.9% (95% CI, 89%-99%) and specificity of 72.2% (95% CI, 46%-90%) for ESC versus clear cell carcinoma. Absence of WT1 alone had a sensitivity of 66.0% (95% CI, 51%-79%) and specificity of 98.0% (95% CI, 94%-99%) for ESC versus ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Among all 52 ESCs, ERBB2 amplification was present in 23%, FBXW7 expression was absent in 10%, and CCNE1 was overexpressed in 59%, however, none were associated with prognosis. Our data support the value of IHC marker panels for histotyping of high-grade endometrial carcinomas.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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