Prognostic significance of annexin II , human epididymis protein (HE-4) and claudin in endometrial carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most prevalent malignant tumors of the female reproductive system worldwide. Annexins are membrane binding proteins with important role in tumor development and progression. Human Epididymis Protein (HE-4) is a novel marker for gynecolgical tumors. Claudins are proteins of tight junction category playing an important role in cell adhesion and tumor spread.Material and methods: Seventy blocks of paraffin-embedded tissues of endometrial carcinoma cases. Immunohistochemical evaluation of Annexin II , HE- 4 and Claudin-7 staining was performed. Clinical follow-up to all cases was done every three months.Results: Positive Annexin II,HE-4 expression were observed in 88.6% and 77.1% of EC respectively. Significant correlation was found between expression of both Annexin II and HE-4 and FIGO stage, decreased both overall and disease free survival rates. Positive Claudin-7 expression was observed in 40% of EC, with significant correlation with high grade only, however, no correlation with other clinical parameters or survival analysis was detected.Conclusion: Annexin II, HE-4 and Claudin-7 are prognostic factors for endometrial carcinoma and could be used in molecular targeted therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 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".