MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2481566728 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2016-0192-ed

Insights on the “Why, When, and How” of Integrating Molecular Testing in Anatomic Pathology Practice: Dedicated to the Memory of Gregory J. Naus, MD (1951–2015)

2016· article· en· W2481566728 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Diana Beşliu-Ionescu

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPresentation (obstetrics)MedicineBreast cancerMolecular pathologyMedical educationPanel discussionResource (disambiguation)PathologyMedical physicsRadiologyCancerComputer scienceInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Canadian Anatomic and Molecular Pathology (CAMP) conference was created with the future in mind. As conference chairs, Greg Naus, MD, and I envisioned that CAMP would serve as a forum for practicing anatomic pathologists to get together in a collegial and intellectually rigorous atmosphere to learn about the practical aspects of integrating anatomic and molecular pathology in a rapidly changing world. Online education, including blogs, podcasts, and social media, can be an invaluable resource for keeping up to date with the latest advances, but they present us with a huge amount of unfocused information. By offering an in-depth understanding of the “why, when, and how” of molecular testing in anatomic pathology with limited details regarding the technical details of molecular testing, CAMP intends to help pathologists improve their skills and innovation in case reporting. CAMP's speakers are not only teachers but also navigators for the vast amount of information available on each subject.In keeping with our vision, each year one clinical topic will be selected for a multidisciplinary discussion. For 2016 the topic was breast cancer. One entire morning was organized in conjunction with the participants of the Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium. This brought together more than 200 medical experts in breast cancer from surgery, medical oncology, radiology, radiation oncology, and pathology to review important aspects of our practice. Another highlight of CAMP 2016 was the presentation of the “2015 WHO Classification of Lung Tumors” by our distinguished guest speaker, William Travis, MD, followed by a panel discussion on biomarkers in lung cancer, with active participation from medical oncology.The articles selected for this special section are based on presentations at CAMP. They will appear in 2 parts: part 1 in the August issue of the Archives, and part 2 in the September issue. The special section comprises 7 articles written by distinguished, nationally and internationally recognized experts in pathology and medical genetics from the United States and Canada, selected for leadership in their field and teaching expertise. The topics reflect challenges in daily practice encountered by surgical pathologists. They are intended to make pathologists comfortable with the vast repertoire of molecular tests that have recently changed our specialty.Part 1 of the special section in this issue includes 4 articles: Esmeralda Celia Marginean, MD, has prepared an article titled “The Ever-Changing Landscape of Drug-Induced Injury of the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract”; Martin Trotter, MD, PhD, FRCPC, and colleagues have written an article titled “Practical Strategies to Improve the Clinical Utility of the Dermatopathology Report”; Brandon Sheffield, MD, has written “Immunohistochemistry as a Practical Tool in Molecular Pathology”; and Malcolm Hayes, MMed(Path), and colleagues have contributed an article titled “Practical Considerations in Breast Papillary Lesions: A Review of the Literature.”Part 2 in the September issue will include 3 articles: Graham Slack, MD, has prepared an article titled “The Pathology of Reactive Lymphadenopathies: A Discussion of Common Reactive Patterns and their Malignant Mimics”; Allen Gown, MD, has written “Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry: What Can Go Wrong and How to Prevent It”; and Kasmintan Schrader, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues have written “How to Screen for Hereditary Cancers in General Pathology Practice.”The Canadian Association of Pathologists accredits CAMP for a maximum of 13.5 hours. The first edition of CAMP was attended by 78 participants from the United States (13 different states), Canada (7 provinces), and Australia. Participants were mainly pathologists from academic, community, and private practices, as well as medical oncologists and industry representatives.I would like to thank Archives Editor-in-Chief Philip Cagle, MD, for his generous offer to host these articles and for his sensitive offer to dedicate this Special Section to the memory of Dr Greg Naus, and I offer special thanks to all CAMP speakers and to the authors and reviewers who made this edition possible. Last but not least, I would like to thank Ms Katie Giesen, managing editor, and the entire editorial office of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine for their support and help.Organizing CAMP was an amazing learning experience for me, and I enjoyed every aspect of it: fundraising, Web design, contract negotiation, speaker and topic selection, accreditation, budgeting, and conference management. CAMP's first conference, held January 28–31, 2016, at Fairmont Chateau Whistler, was dedicated to Dr Greg Naus, my cochair for CAMP, my dear colleague, friend, beloved husband, and exceptional life partner. I will continue the vision we shared about CAMP, which signifies our last project together, and will try to build its success as a legacy to the teacher and educator that Greg was. See you at CAMP 2017 (http://www.pathologycamp.ca).I hope you enjoy reading this section and find the information presented useful in your daily practice.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,103

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,055
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,011
Communication savante0,0090,010
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineMême sujetCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207