Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaplastic ependymomas are relatively uncommon, WHO grade III tumours that can occur in any location of the central nervous system. Low, as well as high grade tumours may show an additional component, most frequently cartilage or bone. Ganglionic differentiation has been demonstrated in only very few cases, usually young individuals. The purpose of this communication is to describe six examples of anaplastic ependymomas with a definite ganglionic component. All tumours were supratentorial and occurred in adults, 36-81 years of age. With the exception of one with a cystic component, all showed a diffuse MRI pattern and variable enhancement. All tumours displayed necrosis, vascular proliferation and marked pleomorphism, due to a mixture of epithelioid, giant, rhabdoid and gemistocytic, as well as clear and undifferentiated cells. Immunohistochemistry revealed reactivity for EMA (often atypical), GFAP and markers of neuronal differentiation, usually synaptophysin and chromogranin. All displayed high MIB-1 and occasional P53-positive nuclei. Two cases showed sarcomatous differentiation with desmin, smooth muscle actin and very rich reticulin staining. Electron microscopy revealed “zippering” intercellular junctions, basal bodies and cilia. Neuronal differentiation was expressed by neurosecretory granules and/or rich endoplasmic reticulin, large nuclei with nucleoli, and rare neuritic processes with microtubules. Differentiation of these rare tumours from glioblastomas might be important for the future development of tumour-specific molecular therapies. Electron microscopy is highly recommended for correct diagnosis of atypical variants of Anaplastic Ependymoma.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".