MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011933632 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000669

NTRK-rearranged Cervical Sarcoma: Expanding the Clinicopathologic Spectrum

2020· article· en· W3011933632 on OpenAlexaff
Anjelica Hodgson, Cherry Pun, Bojana Djordjevic, Gulisa Turashvili

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologySarcomaBiologyReceptor tyrosine kinaseMedicineCancer researchInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NTRK genes (NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3) encode for TrkA, TrkB, and TrkC, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinases which serve a variety of functions including in the regulation of pathways involved in carcinogenesis. A number of reports have described NTRK gene fusions in a variety of adult and pediatric tumor types from various organ systems including the central nervous system, thyroid gland, breast, and soft tissue. NTRK-rearranged uterine sarcomas are a recently described group of tumors which occur in both the uterine corpus and cervix, tend to morphologically resemble fibrosarcoma, and may behave aggressively, although data is limited given the newly recognized nature and thus relative rarity of these tumors. Herein, we present the case of a cervical sarcoma with SPECC1L-NTRK3 fusion (detected with Illumina RNA Fusion Panel), prospectively diagnosed at the time of cervical biopsy and subsequently treated with hysterectomy. The clinical presentation, radiologic findings, morphologic features, and immunohistochemical profile of this case will be reviewed and compared with the body of existing literature to date. Identification of NTRK-rearranged neoplasms is important as targeted therapy in the form of NTRK inhibitors has recently become widely available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207