Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society (PBPS) wants to thank the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine for highlighting our society by publishing 4 review articles based on the presentations at the PBPS companion society symposium at the 2019 United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting. The PBPS fosters excellence and collaboration in education, research, and the practice of pancreatobiliary pathology around the world. Although we became an official society in 2016, and a USCAP companion society in 2018, the sharing of knowledge, enthusiasm, and ideas in pancreatobiliary pathology started more than 20 years ago as an annually held “Pancreas Club” luncheon, whose first advisory council members consisted of Volkan Adsay, MD, Ralph Hruban, MD, David Klimstra, MD, Günter Klöppel, MD, and Giuseppe Zamboni, MD. Thanks to their dedication to pancreatobiliary pathology, this small club evolved into the official 501c3 society that it is today (PBPath.org).The 2019 PBPS Companion Society Symposium was titled “Challenging Topics in Pancreatic Neoplasia” and consisted of outstanding presentations including 3 talks on nonductal neoplasms of the pancreas and 1 talk on the progress of one of the PBPS's working groups, the neoadjuvant therapy working group. These talks have been converted to review articles in this issue of Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. In the first article, Laura Wood, MD, PhD, an associate professor and pancreatic pathologist who leads her own basic science laboratory at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, reviews pancreatic neoplasms with acinar differentiation, along with her colleague at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Elizabeth Thompson, MD. The clinicopathologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular features of acinar cell carcinoma and pancreatoblastoma are discussed, as are the potential diagnostic pitfalls. The second article examines pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms and is by Laura Tang, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, who has published extensively on this topic. The review includes the history, terminology, classification, and grading of these tumors, their variable morphology, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Hereditary syndromes and molecular and genomic studies in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are also discussed. Stefano La Rosa, MD, who is at the Institute of Pathology, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland, along with Massimo Bongiovanni, MD, from Synlab Swiss SA (Lausanne) covers key histopathologic and genetic features of pancreatic solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm, and highlights the differences between this entity and other nonductal pancreatic neoplasms. The final review is by Huamin Wang, MD, a professor in the Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, Division of Pathology/Lab Medicine of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC), Houston, Texas, who is a funded scientist and also the chair of the neoadjuvant therapy working group of PBPS. Dr Wang, with his coauthors Teddy Sutardji Nagaria, MD, PhD, Hua Wang, MD, PhD, and Deyali Chatterjee, MD (also from MDACC and Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri), provides a thorough review of the challenges encountered during the pathologic evaluation of treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, including its grading and staging.We are proud of our society and the contributions its members make to the field of pancreatobiliary pathology. We hope you enjoy these review articles on nonductal neoplasms and treated adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,006 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».