MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Correlating peptidylglycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase (PAM) expression with clinicopathologic variables in gastrointestinal (GI) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

2023· article· en· W4379282320 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Sim, Horia Marginean, Anna Jirovec, Michael M. Vickers, Esmeralda Celia Marginean, Tim Asmis, Bianca Marginean, Rachel Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainingImmunohistochemistryTissue microarrayPathologyNeuroendocrine tumorsMedicineStomachDuodenumInternal medicineBiologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16243 Background: Peptidylglycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase (PAM) is a hypoxia-responsive protein which is responsible for peptide alpha-amidation, important in neuroendocrine hormone maturation. A prior study of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of multiple sites, both GI and non-GI, has shown that PAM expression by immunohistochemistry correlates with important clinical and pathologic parameters. We assessed PAM expression by immunohistochemistry using two separate scoring systems in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) exclusively of the GI tract and assessed its correlation with clinical and pathologic variables. Methods: A tissue microarray was constructed from 58 patients with NETs of the GI tract. Two separate scoring systems were used, the immunoreactive score (IRS) and one as described by Horton et al (2020). The IRS score was derived by scoring for intensity (range 0-3) and percent of cells staining (range 0-4), multiplying these to give an overall IRS between 0 and 12. These results were dichotomized into 0-1 (negative) and 2-12 (positive). The score as described by Horton et al is a 4-tiered system: 0, no staining; 1, very faint and scarce staining; 2, staining easily visible in > 50% of tissue; 3, moderately dark and intense staining across 50% of tissue; 4, very intense dark staining across > 50% of tissue. These were then divided into negative (0), low (1) and high (2-4) scores. Clinical and pathologic variables were collected from the clinical records and correlated with PAM staining. Results: Patients had NETs involving the stomach (n = 1), duodenum (n = 3), ileum (n = 18), small bowel (n = 12), cecum (n = 2), and pancreas (n = 13). Twenty-one patients (36.2%) had 1 metastatic site, 12 patients (20.7%) had > = 2 metastatic sites and 25 patients (43.1%) lacked metastases. IRS and Horton scores were compared and were correlated (p = 0.007). By IRS, 9 patients (31%) had negative staining, and 20 patients (69%) had positive PAM staining. PAM staining did not correlate with functional status of the tumor (p = 1), synchronicity of disease (p = 1), number of metastatic sites (p = 0.69), Octreotide receptor positivity (p = 0.72) or blood chromogranin A (p = 0.58) and urine 5 HIAA levels (p = 0.52). PAM scoring also did not correlate with Ki-67 of primary tumors (p = 0.57). Conclusions: In our GI NET cohort, PAM staining did not correlate with any of the assessed clinical variables or with Ki-67 of primary tumors. A previous study of NETs involving more body sites found that PAM staining did inversely correlate with Ki-67 scoring. This difference may be due to our assessment of solely gastrointestinal NETs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 Clinical Oncology→Same topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances→French-language works237,207→