MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286786496 · doi:10.48083/10.48083/rqbn1626

CD34 and FSHR Expression to Differentiate Multiple Subtypes of Benign and Malignant Renal Neoplasms

2022· article· en· W4286786496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giancarlo Marra, Didier Meseure, Marine Lefèvre, Nicolás André, Laëtitia Lesage, Nicolae Ghinea, Marco Moschini, Caio Pasquali, Petr Macek, Claudia Filippini, Paolo Gontero, Rafael Sanchez‐Salas, Xavier Cathelineau

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD34PathologyOncocytomaMedicineRenal oncocytomaChromophobe cellImmunohistochemistryCarcinomaClear cellBiologyStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundCurrently, no markers accurately differentiate benign from malignant renal masses. CD34 and FSHR are transmembrane proteins involved in neo-angiogenetic pathways and are differently expressed in several normal and cancerous tissues. However, little evidence exists on their distribution in different renal tumors. We aimed to evaluate their expressions in various renal tumors and adjacent normal tissue.MethodsWe retrieved 810 histological samples from 26 patients who underwent surgery for suspected RCa. In each case a core of 10 × 1 mm was selected perpendicular to the tumor capsule between normal kidney and tumor. Within this core 30 regions of interest (ROI), each measuring 669 μm × 500 μm, were acquired at 20× magnification (n = 2 adjacent normal tissue; n = 2 tumor capsule; n = 26 tumor). The surface area of FSHR and CD34 immunostaining was quantified in each ROI using number of stained pixels. The results were compared between RCa and normal kidney.ResultsImmunostaining was significantly different in normal, tumor capsular, and tumor tissues (both CD34 and FSHR P < 0.0001), with overall highest expression in normal and lowest in tumor tissues, where CD34 and FSHR were differently expressed amongst different tumor subtypes (both P < 0.0001). CD34 and FSHR were more expressed in benign versus malignant (both P < 0.0001) and in chromophobe carcinoma versus oncocytoma tumor tissues (CD34 P = 0.0003; FSHR P < 0.0001). The discriminating ability of FSHR alone for benign versus malignant (AUC 0.805; 95% CI 0.771 to 0.837) and chromophobe carcinoma versus oncocytoma (AUC 0.973; 95% CI 0.939 to 0.991) was high. In both cases FSHR AUC was significantly higher than CD34 (both P < 0.0001) and equivalent to the combination of CD34 and FSHR (both P > 0.9). The correlation amongst levels of staining in tumor tissues and distance from the capsule were overall weak (Spearman coefficient CD34 to 0.0644; FSHR-0.16322).ConclusionCD34 and FSHR are differentially expressed across renal tumor subtypes and between tumor and surrounding tissues. FSHR expression alone may be a useful tool to differentiate benign from malignant tumors and chromophobe carcinoma from oncocytoma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207