Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Estrogen has been known to be involved in development and/or progression of tumor cells arising in several organs including breast, endometrium, ovary, and others. Human skin is also considered the target organs of estrogens, which play some roles in the age-related dermal changes. In primary squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin, past history of burn and irradiation have been in general considered one of the important local carcinogenetic factors. In normal skin, fibroblasts in dermis have been demonstrated to express aromatase, one of the estrogen-producing enzymes, has also been proposed based on these findings but their details remain unknown. These injuries to skin above may also be considered to result in the disruption of estrogenrelated physiological functions of the skin, which cause tumor. In this study, we therefore examined whether estrogen receptor (ER) , ER and aromatase are expressed in SCC of the skin or not. Design: Forty-eight cases (male: female 33:15, age range 44-99 yo.) with primary SCC of the skin were retrieved for imuunohistochemical study of ER, ER, aromatase and Ki67. The specimens had been all fixed in 10% formaldehyde solution and embedded in paraffin. Serial tissue sections were used for hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemistry, performed by LSAB method. Nuclear immunoreactivity for ER and ER was evaluated in 500 cancer cells, and the percentage of positive cells was subsequently obtained. Cytoplasmic immunoreactivity for armoatase with more than 10% of carcinoma cells was defined as "positive ". Ki67 labeling index was also obtained by counting 500 carcinoma cells. The statistical calculations, STATA version 7 (College Station, Texas) was used. P value under 0.05 was considered significant. Research protocols for this study were approved by Ethics Committee at University School of Medicine. Results: ER, ER and aromatase were positive in 93.75% (45/48 cases), 97.9% (47/48 cases) and 58.3% (28/48 cases), respectively. The positive rate of ER among aromatase-positive cases was significantly higher among aromatse-negative cases (p<0.05, Mann-Whitney test). The age of aromatase-positive cases was significantly younger than aromatase-negative ones (p<0.05, Mann-Whitney test). Conclusions: These results suggest that the combined expression of ER and aromatase could be related to carcinogenesis and/or progression of SCC of human skin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".