MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229793427 · doi:10.14740/jmc2106w

Lymphoepithelioma-Like Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Report of Three Cases and Review of Literature

2015· article· en· W4229793427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisi Yuan, Federico Aucejo, Krishna Menon, Xiuli Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphoepithelioma-like carcinomaPathologyPopulationChromogenic in situ hybridizationEpstein–Barr virusCarcinomaLymphoepitheliomaImmunohistochemistryVirusIn situ hybridizationImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinomas (LELCs) are carcinomas which show histologic similarities to lymphoepithelioma (AKA nasopharyngeal carcinoma) and prominently feature a lymphoid-rich stroma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. LELCs have been described in a number of different organ systems, are often associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, and have been reported to carry favorable prognoses when compared to classic carcinomas of these organ systems. LELCs of the liver are exceedingly rare. Here, we report three cases of lymphoepithelioma-like hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in one female and two male patients. All three carcinomas were composed of a population of malignant cells with focal to diffuse positivity for HepPar-1, as well as a prominent lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate intimately associated with the malignant cells. In two cases investigated by immunohistochemistry, the lymphoid population contained a prominent CD3 + T-cell population which consisted of CD4 + lymphocytes and CD8 + cytotoxic T cells, which also showed staining for T-cell intracellular antigen-1 (TIA-1). Chromogenic in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded RNA (EBER CISH) was negative in both the malignant cells and the lymphoid population in all three cases. Two patients who underwent surgical resection are alive without recurrence at 38 and 26 months after surgery. The third patient treated by chemoembolization died 31 months after the diagnosis. J Med Cases. 2015;6(7):297-303 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2106w

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207