Genetic and morphologic features for melanoma classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melanoma is comprised of biologically distinct subtypes. The defining clinical, histomorphologic, and molecular features are not fully established. This study sought to validate the association between genetic and histomorphologic features previously described and to determine their reproducibility and association with important clinical variables. Detailed clinical and histomorphologic features of 365 primary cutaneous melanomas were assessed by 11 pathologists and correlated with mutation status of BRAF and NRAS. There was substantial agreement in the quantitative assessment of histomorphologic features showing similar or better interobserver reproducibility than the established World Health Organization classification scheme. We confirmed that melanomas with BRAF mutations showed characteristic morphologic features (P < 0.0001) and metastasized more frequently to regional lymph nodes (P = 0.046). Importantly, melanomas without mutations were a heterogeneous group, with a subset having very similar clinical and morphological features as those with BRAF mutation raising the possibility that they are biologically related. Our study confirms an association between histomorphologic features, mutation status, and pattern of metastasis, providing criteria for a refined melanoma classification aimed at defining biologically homogeneous disease subgroups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".