MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303629115 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29100587

Neuroendocrine Carcinomas of the Uterine Cervix, Endometrium, and Ovary Show Higher Tendencies for Bone, Brain, and Liver Organotrophic Metastases

2022· article· en· W4303629115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyung Kyu Park

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervixMetastasisOvaryEndometriumGastrointestinal tractCervical cancerOncologyPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of the female genital tract is a rare and aggressive subtype of cancer that is still poorly understood. Several recent studies reported that pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms show significantly different patterns of metastasis compared to non-NECs of the same primary sites. The aim of this study was to evaluate the metastatic patterns of gynecologic NECs and to compare the metastatic patterns of NECs and non-NECs of the same primary sites. We retrieved and analyzed cervical, endometrial, and ovarian NEC cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. To validate the results, we also retrieved and analyzed cervical NEC cases from an institutional database. Uterine cervical NEC was the most common NEC. The overall metastatic rate was significantly higher in the NEC group than in the non-NEC group for all three primary sites. All cervical, endometrial, and ovarian NECs showed a higher tendency for bone, brain, and liver organotrophic metastasis than non-NECs of the same primary sites. We demonstrated that gynecologic NECs show significantly different metastatic patterns compared to non-NECs of the same primary sites. These findings might help clinicians to better manage patients with gynecologic NECs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207