MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404369392

Cytogenetic abnormalities in follicular dendritic cell sarcoma: report of two cases and literature review.

2013· article· en· W2404369392 on OpenAlexaff
Anamarija M. Perry, Marilu Nelson, Warren G. Sanger, Julia A. Bridge, Timothy C. Greiner

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcomaPathologyMalignancyKaryotypeBiologyCytogeneticsFollicular dendritic cellsImmunophenotypingMedicineChromosomeImmunologyT cellGeneticsAntigen
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The identification of chromosomal abnormalities in many hematopoietic and mesenchymal neoplasms has contributed significantly to classification systems. Follicular dendritic cell (FDC) sarcoma is an intermediate-grade malignancy with morphological and immunophenotypic features of follicular dendritic cells. Available data on genetic changes in this neoplasm are limited, with only isolated case reports of cytogenetic abnormalities. CASE REPORT: We reviewed histological, immunophenotypic and cytogenetic findings in two cases of FDC sarcoma. The two cases of FDC sarcoma, were observed in female patients, one was nodal and one extranodal and they exhibited relatively complex karyotypes, characterized by structural abnormalities and loss of multiple chromosomes. One patient had several disease recurrences. At the last follow-up both patients were alive with no residual disease. CONCLUSION: The cytogenetic findings in these two cases, coupled with the few previously described abnormal karyotypes, suggest that FDC sarcoma is cytogenetically diverse.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207