MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404061968 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000202

Article by Natalie Banet and Robert J. Kurman

2015· letter· en· W2404061968 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nelly Auersperg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsCalretininBiologyPAX8Serous fluidEpitheliumFimbriaPathologyColumnar CellOvaryCell biologyGeneImmunohistochemistryMedicineImmunologyGeneticsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Reply: The above publication is very interesting and deals with an important topic, that is, the source of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. The authors propose that all of these highly malignant tumors originate from oviductal fimbriae, or from ovarian cortical inclusion cysts (CICs) that are derived from fimbriae, rather than from CICs derived from ovarian surface epithelium (OSE). Several points in the publication require clarification before this conclusion can be accepted: The authors used calretinin and PAX8 as the specific histochemical markers for OSE-derived and fimbriae-derived CICs, respectively. However, while calretinin is a consistently positive marker for mesothelial cells including OSE, and is absent in fimbriae, PAX8 is found in both cell types. In the ovary, PAX8 is mainly, although not completely absent in OSE on the ovarian surface, but it is expressed by most OSE-lined CICs 1–3. This shift in gene expression parallels the general tendency of OSE to acquire epithelial characteristics when translocated from the surface to the ovarian stroma 4. Panels J–O in figure 2, meant to illustrate the specificity of calretinin and PAX8, are of such poor quality as to be inconclusive. The authors assume that all “mixed” CICs (those being lined partially by flat, OSE-like epithelium and partially by columnar, ciliated epithelium) are derived from fimbriae, and speculate that “expansion” (not further defined) causes flattening of some of the ciliated cells to resemble OSE. However, the flat component of mixed CICs does not only resemble OSE morphologically but also by differentiation: it expresses calretinin and lacks several epithelial markers (eg, EPCA, EMA, cilia) present in the ciliated cells within the same CICs 2,3. Therefore, mixed CICs do not result simply through distortion of cell shapes but, rather, through altered gene expression, that is, metaplasia from an OSE-like to a fimbria-like phenotype. The only alternative interpretation of the coexistence of OSE-like and fimbriae-like cells within the same CICs would be metaplasia from a fimbrial to a mesothelial phenotype, which is unlikely. Metaplasia of OSE to fimbriae-like epithelium is more likely to occur because (1) OSE cells are pleuripotential stem cells with the capacity to differentiate along more than one pathway 5–7 and (2) metaplasia tends to lead to developmentally related cell types, and OSE originates from the same embryonic field as the fimbrial epithelium 8,9. It is misleading that, in figure 1, the authors pooled the mixed CICs with ciliated CICs. As mixed CICs include OSE-derived CICs undergoing metaplasia, it is impossible to determine the true proportion of ciliated CICs from figure 1. In the Results section the authors report that 60% of CICs are ciliated, which is closer to results by others 4 and is significantly lower than suggested by figure 1. The article is based on the assumption that fragments of fimbrial epithelium enter the ovarian stroma through ovulatory ruptures of the ovarian surface. This idea has been suggested in many publications but there seems to be no evidence supporting it. In contrast, there are indications contrary to this hypothesis: (1) Immediately after ovulation, the site of follicular rupture is filled with a mass of cells, coagulated fluids and blood, which must impede displacement of any fimbrial epithelial fragments. It would be expected, therefore, that such fragments would occasionally be found within or near freshly ovulated follicles and that ciliated CICs would be located predominantly in or near ovulated follicles or c. lutea. No such spatial relationships have been reported. (2) The authors conclude, based on table 1, that the number of CICs increases with age. Interestingly though, in this table, the highest number of total ciliated CICs occurs in the 71+ age group, that is, in women long past menopause and ovulations. (3) CICs are significantly more numerous in women with polycystic disease who ovulate rarely or not at all, and the number of CICs is proportional to parity, that is, it is inversely proportional to the number of ovulations 10,11. These reports support the hypothesis that CICs arise from invaginations of surface OSE 11. In conclusion, the hypothesis that all high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas arise from fimbrial cells requires further studies. Nelly Auersperg, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of British Columbia Vancouver BC Canada

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0200.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.013

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207