MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128261264 · doi:10.1111/cup.13975

Filaggrin expression via immunohistochemistry in basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma

2021· article· en· W3128261264 on OpenAlexaff
Kaitlin Vanderbeck, Christine Orr, Nikoo Parvinnejad, Tao Wang, Scott H. Bradshaw, Ami Wang, Yuka Asai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Pathology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryKingston Health Sciences Centre
FundersInnovationsfonden
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryFilaggrinPathologyBasal cell carcinomaBasal cellMedicineCarcinomaCancer researchDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Filaggrin is a protein integral to the structure and function of the epidermis. Filaggrin (FLG) loss-of-function (LOF) mutations are common and increase the risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) and ichthyosis vulgaris (IV). Epidemiologic data suggest a link between skin cancer and AD. We examined if FLG staining pattern can be used to characterize cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), basal cell carcinomas (BCC), and reactive squamous epithelium. METHODS: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were created from 196 cases of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) SCC and 144 BCC cases. TMAs and sections of reactive squamous epithelium were stained with optimized anti-FLG antibody and evaluated for FLG expression (normal, abnormal, or negative). RESULTS: FLG was absent in poorly differentiated (PD) compared to well-differentiated (WD) SCC (P < .0001) and moderately-differentiated (MD) (P = .0231) SCC, and in MD compared to WD SCC (P = .0099). Abnormal staining was significantly increased in PD compared to WD cases (P = .0039) and in MD compared to WD cases (P = .0006). Most BCC did not exhibit FLG expression (P < .05). Reactive squamous epithelium demonstrated normal, but exaggerated FLG expression. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the differences in FLG expression patterns in types of keratinocyte carcinomas and their mimickers.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous PathologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207