Mesonephric‐type adenocarcinomas of the ovary: prevalence, diagnostic reproducibility, outcome, and value of <scp>PAX2</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mesonephric-type (or -like) adenocarcinomas (MAs) of the ovary are an uncommon and aggressive histotype. They appear to arise through transdifferentiation from Müllerian lesions creating diagnostic challenges. Thus, we aimed to develop a histologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) approach to optimize the identification of MA over its histologic mimics, such as ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (EC). First, we screened 1,537 ovarian epithelial neoplasms with a four-marker IHC panel of GATA3, TTF1, ER, and PR followed by a morphological review of EC to identify MA in retrospective cohorts. Interobserver reproducibility for the distinction of MA versus EC was assessed in 66 cases initially without and subsequently with IHC information (four-marker panel). Expression of PAX2, CD10, and calretinin was evaluated separately, and survival analyses were performed. We identified 23 MAs from which 22 were among 385 cases initially reported as EC (5.7%) and 1 as clear cell carcinoma. The interobserver reproducibility increased from fair to substantial (κ = 0.376-0.727) with the integration of the four-marker IHC panel. PAX2 was the single most sensitive and specific marker to distinguish MA from EC and could be used as a first-line marker together with ER/PR and GATA3/TTF1. Patients with MA had significantly increased risk of earlier death from disease (hazard ratio = 3.08; 95% CI, 1.62-5.85; p < 0.0001) compared with patients with EC, when adjusted for age, stage, and p53 status. A diagnosis of MA has prognostic implications for stage I disease, and due to the subtlety of morphological features in some tumors, a low threshold for ancillary testing is recommended.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.028 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".