Endometrial Stem/Progenitor cell (ES/PC) Marker Expression Profile in Adenosarcoma and Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The uterus is one of the most dynamic organs in the human body, and this dynamic homeostasis is supported by endometrial stem/progenitor cells (ES/PCs), which are heterogeneous in their phenotype and degree of differentiation. ES/PCs are generally localized in the endometrial stroma, the site of origin for adenosarcoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS). Subsets of ESSs and adenosarcomas harbor SUZ12 or DICER1 gene alterations, two genes with roles in embryonic stem cell biology. However, the possible contribution of ES/PCs to tumorigenesis is unexplored. METHOD: We examined the expression of eleven ES/PC markers, along with three proteins expressed in the mature endometrial stroma (ER, PR and CD10) in 60 uterine tumors (24 low-, 11 high-grade ESS, 25 adenosarcomas). Protein expression profiles were assessed by unsupervised hierarchical clustering. miRNA expression profiles were examined in a subset of adenosarcoma with/without DICER1 mutations, using the NanoString platform. RESULTS: ES/PC markers were variably expressed, and the tumors exhibited limited immunophenotypic resemblance to different ES/PCs. Within the ESSs, the ES/PC marker clustering pattern was prognostic for both overall and disease-free survival. Comparing adenosarcomas and ESSs, most high-grade ESSs clustered with one another, while low-grade ESSs and adenosarcomas tended to cluster with one another. Among the adenosarcomas, the miRNA expression profiles were varied with respect to the DICER1 mutation status, with pathway analysis pointing to dysregulated signal transduction and stem cell biology. CONCLUSIONS: ESSs and adenosarcomas exhibit varying immunophenotypic resemblance to ES/PCs. These expression profiles have prognostic implications and may be genetically driven.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".