Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting Her2 gene amplification has become routine in predicting therapeutic responsiveness in patients with breast carcinoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a common technique for detecting Her2 amplification, yet dark field fluorescence microscopy remains problematic for many pathologists. Thus, a technique such as chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), in which the more familiar light microscopy can be used, is appealing. Paraffin-embedded sections from 61 breast carcinomas were tested for Her2 amplification by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and CISH. FISH was used to confirm CISH results. Excellent correlation was found between IHC and CISH except in cases considered negative (1+ on the DAKO scale) by IHC. CISH detected low-level Her2 amplification in 4 of 9 of these cases. Amplification was subsequently confirmed by FISH in all but 1 case. When compared with FISH, CISH was more sensitive than IHC for detecting low levels of Her2 gene amplification. Moreover, excellent concordance was found between FISH and CISH, supporting the conclusion that the CISH assay for Her2 gene amplification provides an accurate, effective, and practical alternative to FISH.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it