MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041611630 · doi:10.1111/his.14204

Carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9) expression in multiple renal epithelial tumour subtypes

2020· article· en· W3041611630 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyClear cellChromophobe cellClear cell renal cell carcinomaImmunostainingBiomarkerClear cell carcinomaRenal cell carcinomaBiologyMedicineCarcinomaImmunohistochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Renal epithelial neoplasms (RENs) can be difficult to subclassify, owing to overlapping morphological features. Carbonic anhydrase 9 (CA9) is a common biomarker for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC); however, the sensitivity and specificity across REN subtypes are less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate CA9 expression in RENs, especially those in the differential diagnosis with CCRCC and less common entities, to determine its reliability as a diagnostic biomarker. METHODS AND RESULTS: CA9 immunostaining was performed on 262 RENs, including 119 CCRCCs and 143 non-CCRCC. Immunostaining was evaluated as negative (0%), rare (1+, 1-10%), focal (2+, 11-50%), or diffuse (3+, >50%). CCRCCs were 3+ CA9-positive in 93% of cases; 4% were CA9-negative. Sixty-seven percent of papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) were 1+/2+ CA9-positive, whereas 33% were CA9-negative. Chromophobe RCCs were nearly always CA9-negative (93%), with 7% showing rare cell reactivity. Clear cell tubulopapillary RCCs (CCTPRCCs) were consistently 3+ CA9-positive, but with a cup-like staining pattern. Fifty-three percent of Xp11.2 RCCs were CA9-negative; however, 6% were 3+ CA9-positive and 12% were 2+ CA9-positive. Two of eight fumarate hydratase-deficient RCCs were 3+ CA9-positive. A small subset of the remaining RCCs showed rare to focal CA9 expression. All oncocytomas and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCCs were CA9-negative. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, diffuse CA9 expression was identified in nearly all CCRCCs and in all CCTPRCCs (high sensitivity); however, CA9 was not entirely specific. At least focal CA9 expression can been seen in a subset of many RCCs, and such findings should be taken into consideration with other morphological, immunophenotypic and clinical findings.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.215 · 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