Androgen receptor (AR) expression in different Gleason scores of prostatic adenocarcinoma by immunohistochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prostatic cancer is highly ominous in men and survives hormonal insufficiency. We studied Androgen Receptor (AR) expression in various Gleason scores (GS) of prostatic adenocarcinoma by using immunohistochemistry.
 Materials and methods: This descriptive analytical study was carried out at King Edward Medical University/Mayo Hospital, Lahore in 2016. Slides were prepared from 60 paraffin blocks of prostatic adenocarcinoma and stained for evaluation of different parameters like Gleason score (GS), histopathological grades (well differentiated, intermediate or high grade) and AR immunohistochemistry score. Data entry and analysis was carried out using SPSS version 22. The relationship between different parameters was determined by Pearson chi-square test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
 Results: Out of 60 cases, 15 (25%) had intermediate and 45 (75%) had high grade tumors. AR was positive in 59 (98.33%) cases. Among the positive cases, 5 (8.33%) had +1 score, 25 (41.67%) has +2 and 29 (48.33%) had +3 score. A significant association of AR expression with GS and histological grades was found.
 Conclusion: AR positivity is significantly associated with Gleason Score and histological grading of prostate adenocarcinoma, hence it may prove a useful diagnostic and prognostic marker for carcinoma prostate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".