Eosinophilic Solid and Cystic Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESC RCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC) has been recently described as a unique and indolent renal neoplasm, found in female patients with and without tuberous sclerosis complex. Although ESC RCC has a distinct morphology and frequent CK20 reactivity, its molecular karyotype has been previously studied only in few cases. We identified 19 ESC RCC from multiple institutions; all patients were female individuals without clinical features of tuberous sclerosis complex. Molecular karyotyping was performed in 13 cases (12 with informative result). The median age was 55 years (range: 32 to 79 y). The tumors were yellow-gray with a median size of 31 mm (range: 12 to 135 mm) and showed solid and cystic gross appearance. All tumors demonstrated typical microscopic features with solid areas admixed with variably sized macrocysts and microcysts. The cells showed eosinophilic cytoplasm with granular cytoplasmic stippling and round-to-oval nuclei. CK20 was positive in 14/19 (74%) cases. Stage pT1 was found in 17/19 (89%) patients (pT1a in 12, pT1b in 5); 1 patient each had pT2a and pT3a. A total of 15/16 patients with available follow-up were alive and without evidence of disease progression, after 1 to 169 months (median: 44 mo; mean: 49.6 mo); 3 died of other causes. The most common copy number gains were 16p13.3-16q23.1 (33% to 67%), 7p21.2-7q36.2 (42% to 50%), 13q14.2 (33%), and 19p12 (33%). The most common copy number losses included Xp11.21 (42%) and 22q11.23 (33%). Loss of heterozygosity was most frequently found at 16p11.2-11.1 (75%), Xq11.1-13.1 (75%), Xq13.1-21.1 (33%), 11p11.2-11.11 (33%), 9q21.1-22.2 (33%), and 9q33.1 (33%). ESC RCC demonstrates common molecular karyotype alterations, which further support its distinct nature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".