Prognostic Potential of the Expression of Podoplanin (D2-40) Within Cells of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Larynx and Hypopharynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Podoplanin (D2-20) stains immunohistochemically lymphatic vessels, regular mesothelium and tumor cells of different tumors, e.g. malignant mesothelioma or seminoma. In squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), the marker has been described as variously expressed. METHODS: This study has investigated the value of the immunohistochemical analysis for the prognostic relevance of the expression in 119 SCCs of the larynx and hypopharynx. The clinical data and documentation of follow-up for at least 5 years were available. RESULTS: The collective showed the expected distribution of patient age with accentuation of the male sex and a balanced spread of tumor stages including nodal status. The immunohistochemical stain intensity (negative, weak or strong) and the distribution (equal versus focal) were evaluated. In addition, the accentuation of the staining reaction was separately examined at the border of invasion. SCCs with a strong expression of podoplanin were associated with an unfavorable prognosis. A comparison of grouped cases showed a trend emerging with borderline results (negative to weakly positive, P = 0.51; negative to strongly positive, P = 0.054; weakly positive to strongly positive, P = 0.17). The staining at the border of invasion had no statistical effect on overall survival. Multivariate survival statistics however showed that lymphonodal metastasis and a reaction with podoplanin in tumor cells are associated with significant worse prognosis. CONCLUSION: In summary, regardless of the exact function of podoplanin in the process of cell migration and tumor progression, an immunohistochemical identification of expression in tumor cells of SCC of the larynx and hypopharynx can give additional information about the expectable 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".