MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392598511 · doi:10.1111/pin.13417

Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity is biologically and clinically distinct from eosinophilic papillary renal cell carcinoma

2024· article· en· W4392598511 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Francis Castillo, Kiril Trpkov, Theodorus van der Kwast, Fabio Rotondo, Malek Hamdani, Rola Saleeb

Bibliographic record

VenuePathology International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersStrongGovernment of OntarioCanadian Urological Association Scholarship FundCanadian Urological Association
KeywordsPathologyImmunohistochemistryPapillary renal cell carcinomasEosinophilicMultidrug resistance-associated protein 2StainingIn situ hybridizationKidneyBiologyMedicineRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineGene expressionGeneTransporterATP-binding cassette transporter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity (PRNRP) is a recently described indolent entity with distinct features and its recognition from other oncocytic/eosinophilic papillary renal cell carcinoma (ePRCC) has important prognostic implications. ABCC2, a renal drug transporter, is overexpressed in aggressive PRCCs. In this study, we compared the clinicopathological parameters and the biological ABCC2 expression between PRNRP and ePRCC. PRNRP (n = 8) and ePRCC (n = 21) cases were selected from resection specimens and corresponding clinicopathological data were collected. ABCC2 immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was performed and ABCC2 staining patterns were classified as negative, cytoplasmic, and brush-border. RNA in-situ hybridization (ISH) was used to assess ABCC2 transcript levels. All eight PRNRP cases had weak cytoplasmic ABCC2 IHC reactivity; however, they showed no detectable ABCC2 transcripts on RNA ISH. In comparison, 76% (16/21) of ePRCCs showed ABCC2 IHC brush-border expression and significantly higher ABCC2 RNA ISH transcript levels (p < 0.001). Additionally, the ePRCC group showed a significantly larger tumor size (p = 0.004), higher WHO/ISUP grade (p < 0.001), and stage (p = 0.044). None of the PRNRP cases showed disease progression, while 9.5% (2/21) ePRCCs had disease progression. PRNRP is clinically and biologically distinct from ePRCC. Hence, it is crucial to differentiate between these two entities, particularly in needle core 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 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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathology InternationalSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207