MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202994549 · doi:10.5430/jst.v11n1p1

Prognostic significance of SOX2 and GPC3 in Ameloblastoma and its malignant counterpart (Ameloblastic Carcinoma)

2021· article· en· W3202994549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaza I.A. Hasan, Sherief Y.M. El Nagdy, Mona M.A. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmeloblastomaImmunohistochemistryPathologyMedicineOdontogenic tumorOdontogenicDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ameloblastoma is a common benign aggressive odontogenic tumor with a tendency for high recurrence rate. Ameloblastic Carcinoma is the malignant counterpart of Ameloblastoma. However, they are usually difficult to be distinguished from one another. Therefore, using Immunohistochemical markers might be beneficial for diagnosing them accurately.Objective: Evaluation of SOX2 and GPC3 expressions as well as evaluating their roles in the tumorigenesis and the biological behavior of Ameloblastoma and Ameloblastic Carcinoma.Methods: Tissue samples are composed of 34 archived histopathologically confirmed cases of (19 Conventional Ameloblastomas, and 15 Ameloblatic Carcinomas). Sections were subjected to Immunohistochemical staining according to a standard protocol by applying antibodies to SOX2, and GPC3.Results: SOX2 and GPC3 expressions in recurrent Ameloblastoma were significantly higher than non- recurrent cases. Ameloblastic Carcinoma showed the highest immune-reactivity to SOX2 and GPC3 compared to the Conventional Ameloblastoma. Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma showed the highest scores of SOX2 and GPC3 compared to the other subtypes.Conclusions: SOX2 and GPC3 can be used as a panel for diagnosing the aggressive and the malignant odontogenic tumors accurately. Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma behaves more aggressively than other Conventional Ameloblastoma subtypes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207