standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 5 of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | AN ENTIRE TAXONOMY BEING REVISED BY A NAMING AUTHORITY - the fourth edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumours, with eight entities added, three variants added, two entities demoted to descriptive phrases, and the admission rules for each rank printed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | what must be true of a lesion before it may be called a new entity, a variant, or merely a pattern of differentiation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a three-rank membership vocabulary with explicit criteria, an updated grading scheme, and ICD-O codes for every entity - presented as 'the standard for the definition of brain tumours' worldwide Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a classification whose grade label decides therapy while spanning outcomes from death within a year to 80% five-year survival Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | A THREE-RANK MEMBERSHIP VOCABULARY WITH PUBLISHED ADMISSION RULES: `The Working Group distinguished between clinico-pathological entities, variants of entities and histological patterns. To be included in the WHO classification, two or more reports from different institutions were considered mandatory. Quotation withheld` An evidence threshold, an independence requirement and three ranks of thinghood - the most complete published set of admission rules for a class in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE AUTHORITY SAYS ITS OWN PAST ADMISSIONS FAILED ITS OWN RULE: `histological variants have been introduced if there was evidence that a particular morphological pattern was associated with a different biological or clinical behaviour. Admittedly, in retrospect, this criterion was not always fulfilled.` Four editions of a standard, and the fourth says the first three admitted things they should not have Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND AN ENTITY IS DEMOTED TO A DESCRIPTIVE PHRASE, WITH ITS CODE REDIRECTED: `Medulloblastoma with myogenic differentiation was previously termed MEDULLOMYOBLASTOMA ... since its clinical features and genetic profile are similar to those of other medulloblastomas, this lesion is no longer considered A DISTINCT ENTITY and it is suggested that the code for medulloblastoma (9470/3) be applied.` The name survives as a description and loses its standing as a thing - and melanotic medulloblastoma goes the same way in the next paragraph Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A CLASS IS PARKED WITH THE CONDITION FOR ITS PROMOTION NAMED: `Quotation withheld` A pre-registered promotion criterion for a category - and the glioneuronal tumour with neuropil-like islands is parked the same way, needing `more cases with genetic analysis and clinical follow-up` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE DISSENT IS PRESERVED WITH THE RIVAL NAMES: `At the WHO consensus meeting, the designation of these tumours was controversial. Some participants proposed the term `OLIGOASTROCYTOMA WHO GRADE IV` or `OLIGODENDROGLIAL GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME`. The majority of pathologists thought that more clinico-pathological data should be available before this tumour is considered a new disease entity.` The losing names are printed, and the interim label - `glioblastoma with oligodendroglioma component` - is explicitly provisional Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A TERM IS NARROWED, WITH ITS DEPRECATED SYNONYMS LISTED: `In the past, the term pituicytoma was also applied to other tumours in the sellar and suprasellar region, particularly granular cell tumours and pilocytic astrocytomas. Presently, it is reserved for low-grade glial neoplasms that originate in the neurohypophysis ... Less preferred terms for pituicytoma include `POSTERIOR PITUITARY ASTROCYTOMA` and ... `INFUNDIBULOMA`.` Our `alternatives` layer again, in a real classification, with a preference order Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A PREFIX IS ADDED BECAUSE ANOTHER FIELD USES THE SAME NAME: the previous edition's `supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumours` becomes the more general PNET, and then `Since this designation is also used for similar ... tumours at extracerebral sites, the WHO Working Group proposes to add the prefix CNS to these entities, in order to avoid any confusion.` A name disambiguated by construction rather than by context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE GRADING SCHEME DISCLAIMS ITSELF AND IS OPTIONAL: `The WHO classification ... includes a grading scheme that is A `MALIGNANCY SCALE` ranging across a wide variety of neoplasms rather than a strict histological grading system. It is widely used, but not a requirement for the application of the WHO classification.` The instrument that decides radiation and chemotherapy is declared not to be part of the classification it accompanies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND ONE GRADE LABEL SPANS UNDER A YEAR AND OVER 80% FIVE-YEAR SURVIVAL: `The majority of glioblastoma patients ... succumb to the disease within a year. For those with other grade IV neoplasms, the outlook may be considerably better. For example, cerebellar medulloblastomas and germ cell tumours such as germinomas, both WHO grade IV lesions, are rapidly fatal if untreated, while state-of-the-art radiation and chemotherapy result in 5-year survival rates exceeding 60 and 80%.` A class whose members are not alike in the thing the class predicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE GRADES OF THE NEW ENTITIES ARE PROVISIONAL BECAUSE n IS SMALL: `since the number of cases of some newly defined entities is limited, the assignment of grades remains preliminary, pending publication of additional data and long-term follow-up.` Angiocentric glioma rests on 28 reported cases, RGNT on 17, spindle cell oncocytoma on ten from three institutions - and the grade decides the therapy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND TWO GRADING SYSTEMS USE ONE NUMBER FOR DIFFERENT THINGS: `This system is similar to the St Anne/Mayo classification, with the only major difference being grade I; in the WHO system, grade I is assigned to the more circumscribed pilocytic astrocytoma, whereas the St Anne/Mayo classification assigns grade 1 to an exceedingly rare diffuse astrocytoma without atypia.` Same label, different extension, and both live in the same clinics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE CRITERION FOR THE TOP GRADE VARIES BY AUTHOR: `For WHO grade IV, some authors accept only the criterion of endothelial proliferation, i.e. an apparent multi-layering of endothelium. The WHO classification also accepts glomeruloid microvascular proliferations. Necrosis may be of any type; perinecrotic palisading need not be present.` The classification is more permissive than some of its users, and says which way Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES SHARE ONE CODE, SO THE REGISTRY CANNOT SEE WHAT THE CLASSIFICATION DISTINGUISHES: `the rosette-forming glioneuronal tumour (RGNT) corresponds to WHO grade I. It shares the new ICD-O code 9509/1 with the papillary glioneuronal tumour (PGNT).` Anaplastic and large cell medulloblastoma likewise share 9474/3. The paper says ICD-O `assures that histopathologically stratified population-based incidence and mortality data become available` - and the stratification stops one level above the entities the same paper just created Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND A PATTERN IS NOT A VARIANT, WHICH LEAVES REAL DIFFERENCES UNNAMED: `Surgical pathologists need to know such divergent patterns of differentiation but not every pattern warrants designation as a variant, since some patterns do not have distinct clinical or genetic features.` The rank is decided by consequence, not by appearance - so a reliably recognisable thing can have no name in the system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE WORKING GROUP IS ONE MEETING: `a group of 25 pathologists and geneticists convened at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg in November 2006 and the results of their deliberations and those of an additional 50 contributors are contained in the 2007 WHO classification.` No voting rule, no agreement threshold and no dissent count is reported - against bishop2017 and staab2017, which publish all three Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE NEW-VARIANT RULE IS LOOSER IN THE ABSTRACT THAN IN THE TEXT: the abstract says `Histological variants were added if there was evidence of a different age distribution, location, genetic profile or clinical behaviour` - four alternatives joined by OR - while the Entities section requires a new ENTITY to have distinctive morphology AND location AND age distribution AND biologic behaviour. The conjunction changes between the two statements of the same rule family Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE SHARED-CODE ACT IS PERFORMED THREE TIMES IN THIS PAPER AND THE CORPUS RECORDED IT ONCE. Already tagged: RGNT `shares the new ICD-O code 9509/1 with the papillary glioneuronal tumour`. Also in the text, untagged until now: `the 2007 WHO classification recommends the term `EXTRAVENTRICULAR NEUROCYTOMA` and proposes an ICD-O code identical to that of central neurocytoma (9506/1)`. The existing tag says `TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES SHARE ONE CODE, SO THE REGISTRY CANNOT SEE WHAT THE CLASSIFICATION DISTINGUISHES` - that sentence is equally true of 9506/1, and one instance made a policy look like a slip. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | requiring two or more reports from DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS before a lesion may be admitted as an entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a single centre's case series becoming a worldwide diagnostic category · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the three-rank scheme itself - refusing varianthood to patterns without distinct clinical or genetic features Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a recognisable appearance being mistaken for a distinct disease · outcome: partial | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | marking the grades of newly defined entities as preliminary until case numbers and follow-up accumulate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing at the bedside - the grade still decides radiation and chemotherapy while it is provisional · outcome: failed | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | Variants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Variants | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | a previously defined, overarching entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | a new entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a new entity | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | an unusual histopathological pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: an unusual histopathological pattern | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CNS PNET Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CNS PNET | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Supratentorial PNET Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Supratentorial PNET | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | the WHO system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the WHO system | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | the St Anne/Mayo classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the St Anne/Mayo classification | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | tumour grade Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tumour grade | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | the choice of therapies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the choice of therapies | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `entity` (clinico-pathological) - admitted only on TWO OR MORE REPORTS FROM DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS plus distinctive morphology, location, age distribution and biologic behaviour, and NOT on an unusual histopathological pattern alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `variant` - reliably identifiable histologically and with some relevance for clinical outcome, but STILL PART OF a previously defined overarching entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `pattern of differentiation` - an identifiable histological appearance WITHOUT distinct clinical or pathological significance; the rank for things that look different and do not behave differently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `WHO grade` - a `malignancy scale` across all neoplasms rather than a histological grading system, explicitly NOT a requirement for applying the classification, and preliminary for the new entities because their case numbers are small Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the third edition of the WHO Blue Book (Kleihues & Cavenee 2000), which first incorporated genetic profiles as aids to the definition of brain tumours Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the series' own earlier variant admissions - 'Admittedly, in retrospect, this criterion was not always fulfilled' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the St Anne/Mayo grading of astrocytomas at grade I, which assigns the number to a different tumour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Variants —part-of→ a previously defined, overarching entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'VARIANTS WERE DEFINED…' The rank is defined by containment, not by resemblance - and the paper then demotes medullomyoblastoma out of entityhood and parks small cell glioblastoma below varianthood, so all three ranks are exercised in one document · the relation stated: a variant is recognisable and clinically relevant but does not leave its parent entity - which is exactly what separates it from a new entity also in: Variants · a previously defined, overarching entity | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | a new entity —distinct-from→ an unusual histopathological pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'a new entity…' A published statement of what does NOT count, which the corpus has only in the ENCODE blacklist and in bishop2017's exclusionary-criteria section. Note the conjunction: the abstract's rule for VARIANTS uses OR across the same four properties, and this rule for ENTITIES uses AND · the relation stated: an unusual appearance is explicitly insufficient - a new entity needs distinctive morphology AND location AND age distribution AND biologic behaviour also in: a new entity · an unusual histopathological pattern | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CNS PNET —same-as→ Supratentorial PNET Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'THE TERM CNS…' The reason is a cross-field collision: 'tumours AT EXTRACEREBRAL…' A rename that changes nothing about the object and everything about the reader - and the old name keeps the code · the relation stated: the prefixed name is declared synonymous with the existing ICD-O term, so the rename carries no change of extension - only a change of who can be confused also in: CNS PNET · Supratentorial PNET | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | the WHO system —distinct-from→ the St Anne/Mayo classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'This system is…' Two systems, one number, different referents, both live - and a grade decides whether a patient gets radiation · the relation stated: the two astrocytoma grading systems agree everywhere except grade I, where they assign the same number to different tumours
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the WHO system is SIMILAR to the St Anne/Mayo classification with one major difference; distinct-from is loose. also in: the WHO system · the St Anne/Mayo classification | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | tumour grade —causes→ the choice of therapies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'Histological grading is…' Read against two other sentences in the same paper: the scale is 'NOT A REQUIREMENT…', and for the new entities 'THE ASSIGNMENT…'. An optional, provisional label with a treatment attached · the relation stated: the grade is a key factor in choosing therapy, and in particular in deciding adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy protocols also in: tumour grade · the choice of therapies | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A CLASSIFICATION THAT PUBLISHES ITS ADMISSION RULES: `two or more reports from different institutions were considered mandatory ... and not simply by an unusual histopathological pattern` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND SAYS ITS OWN PAST ADMISSIONS FAILED THEM: `Admittedly, in retrospect, this criterion was not always fulfilled` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND AN ENTITY DEMOTED TO A DESCRIPTIVE PHRASE: medullomyoblastoma is `no longer considered a distinct entity` and its cases take the medulloblastoma code Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND A CLASS PARKED WITH ITS PROMOTION CRITERION PRE-REGISTERED: `If future clinical trials show a difference in prognosis and/or response to therapy, the small cell glioblastoma may be reconsidered as a variant` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND ONE GRADE LABEL SPANS DEATH WITHIN A YEAR AND 80% FIVE-YEAR SURVIVAL: glioblastoma against medulloblastoma and germinoma, `both WHO grade IV lesions` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND TWO GRADING SYSTEMS USE ONE NUMBER FOR DIFFERENT TUMOURS: `the only major difference being grade I ... whereas the St Anne/Mayo classification assigns grade 1 to an exceedingly rare diffuse astrocytoma without atypia` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | RGNT, WHO grade I, shares the new ICD-O code 9509/1 with PGNT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the term extraventricular neurocytoma is recommended, with an ICD-O code identical to central neurocytoma's (9506/1) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | atypical choroid plexus papilloma shares the choroid plexus code but with the /1 extension (9390/1) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `a `MALIGNANCY SCALE` ranging across a wide variety of neoplasms rather than a strict histological grading system ... not a requirement for the application of the WHO classification` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: WHO grade | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `two or more reports from different institutions were considered mandatory ... a new entity had to be characterized by distinctive morphology, location, age distribution and biologic behaviour, and not simply by an unusual histopathological pattern. Variants ... still being part of a previously defined, overarching entity. ... patterns ... did not have a distinct clinical or pathological significance` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: clinico-pathological entities | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `two or more reports from different institutions were considered mandatory ... a new entity had to be characterized by distinctive morphology, location, age distribution and biologic behaviour, and not simply by an unusual histopathological pattern. Variants ... still being part of a previously defined, overarching entity. ... patterns ... did not have a distinct clinical or pathological significance` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variants of entities | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `two or more reports from different institutions were considered mandatory ... a new entity had to be characterized by distinctive morphology, location, age distribution and biologic behaviour, and not simply by an unusual histopathological pattern. Variants ... still being part of a previously defined, overarching entity. ... patterns ... did not have a distinct clinical or pathological significance` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: histological patterns | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | plus distinctive morphology, location, age distribution and biologic behaviour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no voting rule, agreement threshold or dissent count is reported Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and grade II typically survive more than 5 years, grade III 2-3 years Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `patients with WHO grade II tumours typically survive more than 5 years and those with grade III tumours survive 2-3 years` - an ordered scale - and then grade IV contains both `succumb ... within a year` and `5-year survival rates exceeding 60 and 80%`. The scale is monotone until its last step, where it stops being a scale at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the property that decides rank at every level - it separates an entity from a pattern, a variant from a pattern, and it is what a grade is meant to predict. And it is the one property that cannot be read off the slide, which is why two of the new categories are parked pending clinical follow-up Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: biologic behaviour | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.