MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512672800 · doi:10.1177/1093526617693105

Ossifying Renal Tumor of Infancy: Report of a Case With Positive WT1 Immunohistochemistry and High Mitotic Index and Review of the Literature

2017· review· en· W2512672800 on OpenAlexaff
Benoit Vaillancourt, Luc L. Oligny, Julie Déry, Julie Franc-Guimond, Dorothée Bouron‐Dal Soglio

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric and Developmental Pathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryPathologyWilms' tumorMitotic indexOsteoidPopulationMitosisMedicinePathogenesisBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ossifying renal tumor of infancy (ORTI) is a rare, benign pediatric tumor of the kidney. Since first reported by Chatten in 1980, 23 cases have been published. Previous authors have argued that ORTI might originate from nephrogenic rests, thereby sharing a pathogenic relationship with Wilms' tumor (WT). ORTI is characterized histologically by a population of polygonal osteoblast-like cells around an osteoid core and densely cellular component of blastemal-like or spindle cells. While the immunohistochemical profile of the cellular components has been reported, to the best of our knowledge, the status of WT1 expression has only been reported once, where it showed negative marking. Mitoses have been described only sporadically in this neoplasm. We report on a case of ORTI with positive WT1 immunohistochemical marking and numerous mitoses. This case highlights a possible pitfall for misdiagnosing ORTI as a WT and provides additional insight into its pathogenesis.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric and Developmental PathologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207