MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254336558 · doi:10.5858/2008-132-706-evlgc

Epstein-Barr Virus–Associated Lymphoepithelioma-like Gastric Carcinoma

2008· review· en· W4254336558 on OpenAlexaff
Chaturika Herath, Runjan Chetty

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatellite instabilityPolymerase chain reactionEpstein–Barr virusLymphoepitheliomaVirusPathologyCarcinomaCarcinogenesisBiologyAdenocarcinomaLymphoepithelioma-like carcinomaImmunohistochemistryIn situ hybridizationMicrosatelliteCancerMedicineGeneVirologyAlleleGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides an overview of the pathology of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)–associated lymphoepithelioma-like gastric carcinoma, highlighting its unique morphology and clinical features. Lymphoepithelioma-like gastric carcinoma is a rare neoplasm of the stomach with a better prognosis than conventional adenocarcinoma. Most lymphoepithelioma-like gastric carcinomas are associated with EBV infection, while a subset is associated with microsatellite instability. Even though there is a very strong association with EBV, its exact role in carcinogenesis still remains to be elucidated in those cancers that harbor EBV. Distinctive histology and demonstration of EBV using in situ hybridization, polymerase chain reaction, or Southern blotting and immunohistochemistry for the DNA mismatch repair genes or polymerase chain reaction analysis of microsatellite loci to assess microsatellite instability helps to make the diagnosis.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207