Pathological reporting of colorectal cancer specimens: a retrospective survey in an academic Canadian pathology department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey and improve the pathological reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) specimens in a tertiary care pathology department. METHODS: We identified CRC specimens reported in a 6-month period before and after educational sessions and the introduction of a standardized CRC synoptic reporting protocol. Gross and microscopic descriptions were analyzed according to published guidelines for important staging and prognostic features. We then reexamined these parameters for a further 6-month period 15 months later to ensure that the quality of reporting had been maintained. RESULTS: In total, 108 and 166 cases were analyzed before and after standardization, respectively. Many features were reported appropriately, including tumour size, type and grade, depth of invasion, nodal status and proximal and distal margin status. Several underreported features showed significant improvement after standardization, including serosal involvement (reporting increased from 22% to 84%), distance to radial margin (from 14% to 64%), extramural venous invasion (from 18% to 88%), host response (from 19% to 94%) and mean number of nodes retrieved (mean numbers retrieved increased from 11 to 16). The subsequent review 15 months later showed continued long-term improvement in these areas. CONCLUSION: Education and synoptic reporting significantly improved CRC reporting at our centre.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".