Prognostic Role of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Markers “E-Cadherin, β-Catenin, ZEB1, ZEB2 and p63” in Bladder Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the expression of epithelial-mesenchymal markers' E-cadherin, β-catenin, zinc-finger E-box-binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1), zinc-finger E-box-binding homeobox 2 (ZEB2) and p63 in transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) variants of bladder carcinoma (BC) and their correlation with clinicopathological parameters of prognostic importance. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 91 patients were enrolled (66 with TCC and 25 with SCC). All patients had full clinical and follow-up data and available paraffin blocks. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed and correlated with clinicopathological factors. RESULTS: In TCC cases, reduced E-cadherin, β-catenin positivity and p63 expression rate were evident in the sitting of increased expression of ZEB1 and ZEB2. Patients with ZEB2 positive tumors were more likely to die compared to those with negative ZEB2 (P = 0.024). Moreover, in patients with muscle-invasive BCs, an intense p63 expression was associated with poor overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001). For patients with SCC, there was a reduction in E-cadherin and β-catenin positivity with elevated p63 expression and concomitant increased ZEB1 and ZEB2 expression. Poor prognosis was evident in association with reduced E-cadherin, positive nuclear β-catenin/reduced membranous β-catenin, ZEB1 and ZEB2 positive cases as well patients with elevated p63 expression (P < 0.001). TCC and SCC cases showed similar poor prognosis in association with elevated p63 expression (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In both TCC and SCC variants, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) process is evident; however, its molecular mechanism shows some variations, specifically this notably different p63 expression pattern among two carcinoma variants with the similar impact of elevated p63 expression pattern on prognosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".