MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621991973 · doi:10.1111/his.13278

Mucinous adenocarcinoma of prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma with mucinous components: a clinicopathological analysis of 143 cases

2017· article· en· W2621991973 on OpenAlexaff
Hemamali Samaratunga, Brett Delahunt, John R. Srigley, John Yaxley, Shulammite Johannsen, Geoffrey D. Coughlin, Troy Gianduzzo, Boon Kua, Imogen Patterson, John N. Nacey, Lars Egevad

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucinous carcinomaMedicineAdenocarcinomaGrading (engineering)ProstatePathologicalProstate cancerUrologyPathologyProstatectomyCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The clinical significance of mucinous prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) remains uncertain. METHODS: From 6440 cases of PCa treated by radical prostatectomy from 2009 to 2014, mucinous components of 5-100% were found in 143 (2.2%) cases. RESULTS: The mean age was 61.4 years, mean pre-operative serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 7.8 ng/ml and clinical stage category was cT1 in 81% and cT2 in 19% of cases. Cases were graded using the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology recommendation of grading underlying architecture, and Gleason scores (GS) were 3 + 4 in 13.3%, 4 + 3 in 54.5%, 4 + 4 in 2.1%, 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 with tertiary 5 in 11.9% and 9-10 in 18.2%. The mucinous component invariably had a high-grade component. Extraprostatic extension was found in 46.8% of cases. In 21.6%, tumour volume was ≥3 cm³ and 9.7% had surgical margin positivity. Seminal vesicle involvement was found in 6.9%. In 73 cases the mucinous component was >25%, and when cases were divided on the basis of the area of mucin present (≤25 versus >25%) there was no significant difference between clinical or pathological features. Similar findings were achieved when cases were compared with grade-matched non-mucinous carcinoma controls. The 5-year biochemical recurrence rates for mucinous versus non-mucinous cancer were 12.5 versus 17% (P = 0.15). CONCLUSION: PCa with mucinous components is often high grade; however, the prognosis appears to be similar to non-mucinous cancers of similar GS.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207