DNA Ploidy and Liver Cell Dysplasia in Liver Biopsies from Patients with Liver Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy among pathologists when assessing the presence or absence of liver cell dysplasia in liver biopsies taken from cirrhotic patients. The objective of the present study was to determine the DNA ploidy pattern of hepatocytes of patients with liver cirrhosis and its relationship to liver cell dysplasia. A total of 48 male patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis based on clinical, laboratory and histopathological criteria were included in the study. A liver biopsy was taken from each patient; one part of the biopsy was subjected to histopathology, and the other to flow cytometry. The histopathological examination revealed liver cell dysplasia in 60% of patients with liver cirrhosis (62% of them had large cell dysplasia [LCD] and 38% had small cell dysplasia [SCD]). Abnormal DNA content (aneuploidy) was found in 81.5% of positive liver cell dysplasia specimens and found only in 11.1% of negative liver cell dysplasia specimens, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Aneuploidy was found more commonly in LCD but without significant difference (P>0.05) in comparison with SCD. In conclusion, SCD (similar to LCD) is also associated with aneuploidy and elevated DNA index, and may carry the same risk for progression to hepatocellular 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".