Gynecologic perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas): a review of recent evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gynecologic perivascular epithelioid cell (PEC) tumors, or 'PEComas,' represent a rare and intriguing subset of tumors within the female reproductive tract. This systematic literature review aims to provide an updated understanding of gynecologic PEComas based on available literature and data. Although PEComa is rare, there are varied tumor-site presentations across gynecologic organs, with uterine PEComas being the most prevalent. There is scarce high-quality literature regarding gynecologic PEComa, and studies on malignant PEComa underscore the challenges in diagnosis. Among the diverse mutations, mTOR alterations are the most prominent. Survival analysis reveals a high rate of local recurrence and metastatic disease, which commonly affects the lungs. Treatment strategies are limited, however mTOR inhibitors have pivotal role when indicated and chemotherapy may also be used. with some cases demonstrating promising responses. The paucity of data underscores the need for multicentric studies, an international registry for PEComas, and standardized reporting in case series to enhance clinical and pathological data.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it