MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

VEGF immunoexpression in the pituitaries of pregnant women

2012· article· en· W3174406338 on OpenAlexaff
Angelo Rotondo, Fabio Rotondo, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Luis V. Syro, Michael D. Cusimano, Kálmán Kovács

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVascularityMedicineVascular endothelial growth factorHormonePregnancyVEGF receptorsInternal medicineEndocrinologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies showed that in pregnancy the pituitary enlarges and increases in weight due to lactotroph hyperplasia. We demonstrated that in pituitaries of pregnant women, microvessel density is significantly increased compared to those of age– matched non pregnant women. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) stimulates new vessel formation in several tissues and neoplasms. The aim of the present study was to reveal whether VEGF is involved in the causation of increased vascularity in the pituitaries of pregnant women. We assessed VEGF immunoexpression in 20 autopsy obtained pituitaries of pregnant women and compared the results with 20 controls. Slides were immunostained for VEGF and pituitary hormones using the streptavidin‐biotin‐peroxidase complex method. VEGF immunoexpression was evaluated in 10 random high‐power fields using an image analyzer and the results compared by chi‐square or Fisher exact tests. Immunoexpression of VEGF was not increased in the adenohypophyses of pregnant women compared with the controls indicating that VEGF plays no major role in the causation of increased vascularity. The cause remains to be investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→