Poorly Cohesive Carcinoma of the Nonampullary Small Intestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poorly cohesive carcinomas (PCCs) are neoplasms characterized by a dyshesive cell invasion pattern featuring single-cell or cord-like stromal infiltration. Although they have been extensively studied in the stomach and other digestive system organs, limited data regarding nonampullary small bowel poorly cohesive carcinomas (SB-PCCs) are hitherto available. The aims of our study were to analyze the clinicopathologic and immunophenotypical features of SB-PCCs (PCC pattern accounting for >50% of the neoplasm) and to compare them with small bowel adenocarcinomas (SBAs), not otherwise specified (SBAs-NOS) and with cancers with a histologically distinct PCC component accounting for 10% to 50% of the neoplasm (mixed-poorly-cohesive-glandular-SBAs). Fifteen SB-PCCs were identified and compared with 95 SBAs-NOS and 27 mixed-poorly-cohesive-glandular-SBAs. Most SB-PCCs (67%) were composed of <10% of signet-ring cells, and all but 1 SB-PCCs exhibited loss of membranous expression of E-cadherin. Compared with SBAs-NOS, SB-PCCs showed a significantly younger patient age at diagnosis, and a stronger association with Crohn disease, and both SB-PCCs and mixed-poorly-cohesive-glandular-SBAs featured a higher rate of lymphovascular and perineural invasion and a lower percentage of mismatch repair-deficient cases. Importantly, the cancer-specific survival of SB-PCC (hazard ratio: 3.81; 95% confidence interval: 1.90-7.64; P<0.001) and mixed-poorly-cohesive-glandular-SBA (4.12; 2.20-7.71; P<0.001) patients was significantly worse compared with SBAs-NOS cases. This study provides objective evidence to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2019 introduction of SB-PCC as a distinctive subtype of nonampullary SBA, by virtue of its unique clinical and histologic features, and suggests that both SB-PCCs and mixed-poorly-cohesive-glandular-SBAs should be separated from SBAs-NOS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".