MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328100437 · doi:10.30683/1929-2279.2023.12.3

Progesterone and Estrogen Receptors in Meningiomas – A Clinicopathological Analysis

2023· article· en· W4328100437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aparna Govindan, Jacob P. Alapatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cancer research updates · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgesterone receptorMeningiomaImmunohistochemistryEstrogen receptorEstrogenMedicinePopulationCohortPathologyReceptorInternal medicineGynecologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background – Meningiomas are common tumors of the Central Nervous System. Recurrence in meningiomas has been proven to be associated with factors like extent of resection and grade of tumor. Decrease in progesterone receptor expression has been linked to increased rate of recurrence. We undertook this study to know about progesterone and estrogen receptor expression in meningiomas and its association with different clinicopathological variables as data is lacking in the Indian population. Materials and Methods – Meningiomas operated in a tertiary referral centre of North Kerala, India in 2 years were taken into the study. The tumors were graded and immunohistochemistry was performed using antibodies to Estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER&PR) and Ki-67. The expression of PR and ER was correlated with clinicopathologic variables. The patients were followed up for 2 years. Results – Grade I and grade II tumors constituted 85.3% and 14.7% respectively of the total number of meningioma cases. There were no grade III tumors in the series. The average PR positivity in grade I tumors (60.77%) was higher than in grade II tumors (46.88%). There was no gender related difference in PR staining. ER positivity was found only in a few cases. Conclusion – PR deterioration was associated with increased cell turnover. Meningiomas occurring in this study population are similar in clinicopathological parameters to those tumors occurring in other parts of the country but different in some aspects like grade from tumors occurring in other parts of the world. Strict follow up of a larger cohort of patients for a longer time period will be required to draw conclusions about prognosis in this population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cancer research updatesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207