Mesothelioma In Situ Mimicking Well-differentiated Papillary Mesothelial Tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously hypothesized that well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor (WDPMT) consists of 2 morphologically identical lesions, one of which is true WDPMT, while the other is a form of mesothelioma in situ. Here, we report 8 examples of the latter phenomenon, 3 with pleural disease (2 men/1 woman, ages 66 to 78 y); and 5 with peritoneal disease (all women, ages 31 to 81 y). At presentation the pleural cases all had effusions but no evidence of pleural tumor on imaging. Four of the 5 peritoneal cases had ascites as the initial finding and all 4 had nodular lesions that by imaging and/or direct inspection were thought to represent a diffuse peritoneal malignancy. The fifth peritoneal case presented with an umbilical mass. Microscopically, the pleural and peritoneal lesions looked like diffuse WDPMT, but all had lost BAP1. Occasional microscopic foci of superficial invasion were present in 3/3 pleural cases, while single nodules of invasive mesothelioma and/or occasional foci of superficial microscopic invasion were found in all of the peritoneal cases. The pleural tumor patients developed what clinically appeared to be invasive mesothelioma at 45, 69, and 94 months. Four/five peritoneal tumor patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Three with follow-up data are alive without recurrence at 6, 24, and 36 months; 1 patient refused treatment but is alive at 24 months. We conclude that mesothelioma in situ morphologically mimicking WDPMT is strongly associated with the synchronous or metachronous development of invasive mesothelioma, but that these lesions appear to progress very slowly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".