MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216790136 · doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2021.11.010

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Novel molecular insights and clinicopathologic updates

2021· review· en· W3216790136 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Alaghehbandan, Christopher G. Przybycin, Virginie Verkarre, Rohit Mehra

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian journal of urology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilicPathologyChromophobe cellCD117OncocytomaRenal cell carcinomaMedicineClear cellPTENBAP1Renal oncocytomaCancer researchBiologyPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayGeneticsStem cellCD34

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is the third most common renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtype, which predominantly occurs in sporadic setting. ChRCCs are considered to originate from the intercalated cell of distal tubules with two main morphological variants, classic and eosinophilic. Most ChRCCs carry a favorable clinical outcome. Histology alone is limited in predicting the behavior of ChRCCs that do not have overtly aggressive morphologic findings such as necrosis and sarcomatoid features. Along with positive CD117 expression, classic ChRCCs generally express diffuse and uniform CK7, while eosinophilic variant demonstrates more heterogeneous CK7 expression (rare or patchy). Multiple losses of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 are considered to be the genetic hallmarks of classic and eosinophilic ChRCCs, while chromosomal gains are known to be associated with sarcomatoid ChRCCs. TP53 and PTEN are the two most frequently mutated genes in ChRCCs. The major challenge in the differential diagnosis of ChRCCs includes considerations around the eosinophilic variant (of ChRCCs), where it may share overlapping features with oncocytoma or other recent emergent oncocytic tumors. Most eosinophilic ChRCCs share expression of the recently described biomarkers, LINC01187 and FOXI1, with classic ChRCCs, however, a subset of eosinophilic-like ChRCCs with lower biomarker expression have been demonstrated to harbor MTOR gene mutations. Overall, the morphologic features of ChRCCs and genetic profile with combinations of chromosomal losses and gains suggest this tumor entity to represent a distinct, yet heterogeneous group of renal neoplasms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian journal of urologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207