MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940654015 · doi:10.1111/his.13887

Immunohistochemical expression of HIK1083 and MUC6 in endometrial carcinomas

2019· article· en· W2940654015 on OpenAlexaff
Anjelica Hodgson, Carlos Parra‐Herran, Jelena Mirković

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistrySerous fluidPathologyCarcinomaMedicineClear cellStainingClear cell carcinomaSerous carcinomaBiopsyAdenocarcinomaCancerInternal medicineOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) is characterised by aggressive behaviour and pathogenesis independent of human papillomavirus infection. Because of its morphology and frequent mutation-pattern expression of p53, gastric-type EA may be confused with several types of endometrial carcinoma, particularly in biopsy and curettage specimens. HIK1083 and MUC6 are immunohistochemical markers used to support a diagnosis of gastric-type EA; however, the rates of expression of these markers in endometrial tumours are largely unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the expression of HIK1083 and MUC6 in a cohort of different types of endometrial carcinoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-one endometrial carcinomas (56 endometrioid, 16 clear cell, and 19 serous) from 91 patients treated with hysterectomy were included. A representative tumour block from each case was used for immunohistochemical staining with HIK1083 and MUC6. The percentage of stained cells (0-100%) and average staining intensity (weak, moderate, and strong) were recorded for both markers. None of 91 cases expressed HIK1083. In contrast, 66% (60/91) of cases showed at least focal expression of MUC6; importantly, 54 of 60 (90%) positive cases showed moderate or strong staining. Five of 60 (8%) cases showed MUC6 staining in ≥50% of tumour cells. Endometrioid tumours (49/56, 88%) were more likely to express MUC6 than cases of clear cell (1/16, 6%) or serous (10/19, 53%) carcinoma. DISCUSSION: Endometrial carcinoma often expresses MUC6. In contrast, HIK1083 is consistently negative, and thus, when positive, is a more reliable marker for distinguishing gastric-type EA from some of its endometrial mimics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207