Cytologic features of gynecologic germ cell tumors and carcinomas exhibiting germ cell tumor differentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors sought to describe the cytologic features of primary gynecologic germ cell tumors and carcinomas exhibiting germ cell differentiation because little information currently exists. METHODS: An institutional database search was performed to identify histologically confirmed gynecologic germ cell tumors and carcinomas with germ cell tumor differentiation. Available cytologic material was reviewed by three observers, and morphologic features were recorded in addition to patient age at original diagnosis, primary tumor site, site(s) from which the examined cytologic material was obtained, and the type of examined cytologic preparations. RESULTS: In total, 15 cytologic specimens from 12 women (aged 19-82 years) were identified and included touch preparations of core biopsies from various sites (n = 6), fine-needle biopsies (n = 2), pelvic washings (n = 1), ascitic fluids (n = 4), pelvic cyst fluid (n = 1), and endometrial aspirate (n = 1). Of the 12 patients, seven had primary gynecologic germ cell tumors, four had gynecologic (ovarian and endometrial) tumors exhibiting somatic yolk sac tumor-like differentiation, and the remaining patient had an intestinal-type adenocarcinoma arising within an ovarian teratoma. There was morphologic overlap among many of the cases, although cytoplasmic vacuolation/granular cytoplasm was seen in 75% of primary yolk sac tumors or carcinomas with yolk sac tumor differentiation, and dense/squamoid cytoplasm was seen in 100% of teratomatous elements that were sampled. CONCLUSIONS: Germ cell tumors and somatic neoplasms exhibiting germ cell tumor differentiation occurring in adult women share some cytologic features and may be difficult to distinguish from one another, although some tumor types showed characteristic cytomorphologic findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".