MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402793527 · doi:10.3332/ecancer.2015.566

Diagnostic value of SOX-10 immunohistochemical staining for the detection of uveal melanoma

2015· article· en· W2402793527 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Alghamdi, Pablo Zoroquiaín, Ana Beatriz Toledo Dias, Sulaiman Alhumaid, Sultan Aldrees, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

Venueecancermedicalscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelanomaImmunohistochemistryMedicinePathologyRetinoblastomaUveaMonoclonal antibodyRetinaStainingChoroidal melanomaChoroidAntibodyCancer researchBiologyGeneImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: SOX-10 has been shown to be a sensitive marker of cutaneous melanoma. This study aimed to evaluate Sox-10 expression in uveal melanoma. METHODS: A total of 40 tissue blocks of enucleated eyes with uveal melanoma were cut and stained using an anti-SOX-10 mouse monoclonal antibody and HMB-45 antibody. RESULTS: SOX-10 showed exclusive nuclear positivity in 100% of the uveal melanoma cases (38/38). HMB-45 showed cytoplasmic positivity in 97.3 (37/38). Positivity for SOX-10 was also noted in the inner and outer nuclear layers of the retina in 78% of the enucleated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: SOX-10 expression proved to be the most sensitive marker for uveal melanoma, and therefore, we propose a modified panel for the diagnosis of uveal melanoma that includes both SOX-10 and HMB-45. The observation of distinct, diffuse nuclear SOX-10 expression in retinal inner and outer nuclear layers is a finding that warrants further investigation as a marker for retinoblastoma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueecancermedicalscienceSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207