Modeling Canadian Quality Control Test Program for Steroid Hormone Receptors in Breast Cancer: Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control program monitors clinical laboratory performance for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor tests used in breast cancer treatment management in Canada. Current methods assess sensitivity and specificity at each time point, compared with a reference standard. We investigate alternative performance analysis methods to enhance the quality assessment. We used 3 methods of analysis: meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of each laboratory across all time points; sensitivity and specificity at each time point for each laboratory; and fitting models for repeated measurements to examine differences between laboratories adjusted by test and time point. Results show 88 laboratories participated in quality control at up to 13 time points using typically 37 to 54 histology samples. In meta-analysis across all time points no laboratories have sensitivity or specificity below 80%. Current methods, presenting sensitivity and specificity separately for each run, result in wide 95% confidence intervals, typically spanning 15% to 30%. Models of a single diagnostic outcome demonstrated that 82% to 100% of laboratories had no difference to reference standard for estrogen receptor and 75% to 100% for progesterone receptor, with the exception of 1 progesterone receptor run. Laboratories with significant differences to reference standard identified with Generalized Estimating Equation modeling also have reduced performance by meta-analysis across all time points. The Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control program has a good design, and with this modeling approach has sufficient precision to measure performance at each time point and allow laboratories with a significantly lower performance to be targeted for advice.
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 | 0.076 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".