Mast cell evaluation in gastrointestinal biopsies: should we be counting? A critical review and practical guide for the surgical pathologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mast cells are residents of the tubular gastrointestinal (GI) tract, where they play an important role in host defence and other vital functions. Dysregulation of mast cells has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several neoplastic, inflammatory, and functional disorders, some of which may manifest with GI symptoms. Surgical pathologists must therefore confront when and how to evaluate GI biopsies for mast cells, and whether such decisions should be based on morphologic criteria, clinical context, or direct request from clinical colleagues. The pathologist's role in evaluation of mast cell infiltrates is best defined in the diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis, where the utility of morphologic assessment coupled with ancillary studies is well established. In contrast, in nonneoplastic mast cell disorders such as mast cell activation syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, or so-called 'mastocytic enterocolitis', a role for histopathology, if any, is controversial. Despite this, pathologists have seen a sharp increase in requests for mast cell quantification in the latter setting, despite these requests not being supported by published evidence. Moreover, what constitutes a 'normal' number of mast cells in a luminal GI biopsy is not well established. As a result, there is considerable variation in how these requests are handled in practice. This review evaluates and summarizes the published evidence relating to mast cell evaluation in endoscopic GI biopsies in various clinical scenarios, with a goal of providing practical, evidence-based guidance for the surgical pathologist when approached with requests for mast cell quantification in GI biopsies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".