CD5 Immunoreactivity Is Associated With Longer Overall Survival in Thymic Carcinoma: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thymic carcinomas are a heterogeneous group of potentially aggressive malignancies. We aimed to determine the prognostic significance of CD5, CD117, EZH2, POU2F3, BAP1, and MTAP immunohistochemical staining in thymic carcinomas. Immunohistochemistry was performed on 36 thymic carcinomas from patients with retrospectively collected survival data. Thirteen cases (36%) had CD5 staining in 50% or more tumor cells, considered positive staining. Positive CD5 immunohistochemical staining was significantly associated with longer overall survival (hazard ratio=0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.63, p = 0.005). Three-year overall survival was 48% (95% confidence interval: 27%–70%) for CD5 negative cases, and 100% for CD5 positive cases. Positive CD5 staining remained significantly associated with overall survival after adjusting for neoadjuvant treatment, M-stage, or incomplete resection ( p = 0.01). The remaining immunohistochemical markers were not significantly associated with overall survival. Our study supports the notion that CD5 immunohistochemistry may have utility as a novel prognostic marker for thymic carcinoma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".