MyD88 and TLR4 Expression in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (MyD88) and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) expression in relation to clinical features of epithelial ovarian cancer, histologic subtypes, and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted centralized immunohistochemical staining, semi-quantitative scoring, and survival analysis in 5263 patients participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 1978, and December 31, 2014, including 2865 high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOCs), with more than 12,000 person-years of follow-up time. Tissue microarrays were stained for MyD88 and TLR4, and staining intensity was classified using a 2-tiered system for each marker (weak vs strong). RESULTS: Expression of MyD88 and TLR4 was similar in all histotypes except clear cell ovarian cancer, which showed reduced expression compared with other histotypes (P<.001 for both). In HGSOC, strong MyD88 expression was modestly associated with shortened overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P=.04) but was also associated with advanced stage (P<.001). The expression of TLR4 was not associated with survival. In low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC), strong expression of both MyD88 and TLR4 was associated with favorable survival (HR [95% CI], 0.49 [0.29-0.84] and 0.44 [0.21-0.89], respectively; P=.009 and P=.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results are consistent with an association between strong MyD88 staining and advanced stage and poorer survival in HGSOC and demonstrate correlation between strong MyD88 and TLR4 staining and improved survival in LGSOC, highlighting the biological differences between the 2 serous histotypes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".