Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenotypically informed histotype classification remains the mainstay of ovarian carcinoma subclassification. Histotypes of ovarian epithelial neoplasms have evolved with each edition of the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumours. The current fifth edition (2020) lists five principal histotypes: high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC), mucinous carcinoma (MC), endometrioid carcinoma (EC) and clear cell carcinoma (CCC). Since histotypes arise from different cells of origin, cell lineage-specific diagnostic immunohistochemical markers and histotype-specific oncogenic alterations can confirm the morphological diagnosis. A four-marker immunohistochemical panel (WT1/p53/napsin A/PR) can distinguish the five principal histotypes with high accuracy, and additional immunohistochemical markers can be used depending on the diagnostic considerations. Histotypes are further stratified into molecular subtypes and assessed with predictive biomarker tests. HGSCs have recently been subclassified based on mechanisms of chromosomal instability, mRNA expression profiles or individual candidate biomarkers. ECs are composed of the same molecular subtypes (POLE-mutated/mismatch repair-deficient/no specific molecular profile/p53-abnormal) with the same prognostic stratification as their endometrial counterparts. Although methylation analyses and gene expression and sequencing showed at least two clusters, the molecular subtypes of CCCs remain largely elusive to date. Mutational and immunohistochemical data on LGSC have suggested five molecular subtypes with prognostic differences. While our understanding of the molecular composition of ovarian carcinomas has significantly advanced and continues to evolve, the need for treatment options suitable for these alterations is becoming more obvious. Further preclinical studies using histotype-defined and molecular subtype-characterized model systems are needed to expand the therapeutic spectrum for women diagnosed with ovarian carcinomas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".