MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095002537 · doi:10.3390/cancers12113193

Epidemiology of Mucinous Adenocarcinomas

2020· article· en· W3095002537 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew G.K. Benesch, Alexander Mathieson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucinSignet ring cellPopulationMucinous TumorMedicineCancerEpidemiologyPathologyColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mucinous (colloid) adenocarcinomas (MAs) are a rare histological subtype of adenocarcinomas where extracellular mucin comprises more than 50% of the tumor. Most literature on MAs relate to cancers from colorectal and breast sites; however, the literature lacks a standardized overview of the MA disease entity. Particularly in colorectal cancer, some MAs may have signet ring cells floating within the mucin, which may represent a highly metastatic phenotype. MAs and signet ring cell adenocarcinomas represent a spectrum of mucin-producing neoplastic conditions where in the latter most mucin is intracellular rather than extracellular. We recently published a standardized overview of signet ring cells, and in this companion work, using a retrospective cohort approach, we summarize the clinicodemographic and mortality outcomes of MAs in sixteen primary sites, comprising 95.6% of all MAs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), a population-level cancer database covering nearly one-third of the United States population. Compared to matching nonvariant adenocarcinomas, MAs have a slightly earlier age of onset with increased rates of regional and distant disease at presentation. Survival outcomes are highly dependent on tumor location, illustrating our poor understanding of MA tumor biology. The clinical significance of MA histology depends largely on tumor site.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207