Phosphohistone-H3 Proliferation Index Is Superior to Mitotic Index and MIB-1 Expression as a Predictor of Recurrence in Human Meningiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the prognostic value of the phosphohistone-H3 (PHH3) proliferation index (PI) in human meningiomas and compared the reliability with the conventional mitotic index and MIB-1 biomarker. METHODS: Proliferative activity was determined in 160 patients by standardized immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays and related to recurrence. RESULTS: All three proliferation assessment methods were significantly associated with World Health Organization grade. The optimal cutoff values for recurrence prediction were 3% for the MIB-1 PI and 0.5% for the PHH3 PI. Increased PHH3 PI was significantly associated with recurrence-free survival in univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (P = .011) and remained an independent predictor in multivariate analysis (P = .005). Mitotic index and MIB-1 PI did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PHH3 immunostaining allowed for the easiest, fastest, and most objective assessment of proliferation and proved to be the most accurate and reliable method for predicting recurrence in patients resected for meningiomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".