MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991661658 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e31825dd4b3

The Diagnosis of Endometrial Carcinomas With Clear Cells by Gynecologic Pathologists

2012· article· en· W1991661658 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwole Fadare, Vinita Parkash, William D. Dupont, Géza Ács, Kristen A. Atkins, Julie Irving, Edyta C. Pirog, Bradley J. Quade, M. Ruhul Quddus, Joseph T. Rabban, Russell Vang, Jonathan L. Hecht

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarcinomaUnivariate analysisLesionPathologyRadiologyGynecologyMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study are to assess the level of interobserver variability in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinomas with clear cells by gynecologic pathologists based purely on their morphologic features and to comparatively describe the cases of putative clear cell carcinoma (CCC) with and without significant interobserver variability. A total of 35 endometrial carcinomas (1 slide per case) were reviewed by 11 gynecologic pathologists (median experience: 10 y) from 11 North American institutions. The cases were selected from the files of 3 institutions on the basis of the presence of at least focal clear cells and had previously been classified as a variety of histotypes at these institutions. Diagnoses were rendered in a blinded manner and without predetermined diagnostic criteria or categories. The κ values between any pair of observers ranged from 0.18 to 0.69 (combined 0.46), which was indicative of a "moderate" level of interobserver agreement for the group. Subgroups of "confirmed CCC" [cases diagnosed as such by at least 8 (73%) of the 11 observers, n=14] and "possible CCC" (cases diagnosed as CCC by ≥1 but <8 observers, n=13) were compared with regard to a variety of semiquantified morphologic features. By combining selected morphologic features that displayed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on univariate analyses, the following approximate morphologic profile emerged for the confirmed CCC group: papillae with hyalinized cores in ≥33% of the lesion, clear cells in ≥33% of the lesion, hyperchromasia in ≥33% of the lesion, the absence of nuclear pseudostratification in >3 cells on the papillae, the absence of nuclear pseudostratification in glands in ≥33% of the lesion, the absence of diffuse grade 3 nuclei, the absence of long and slender papillae in ≥33% of the lesion, and glands and papillae lined by cuboidal to flat, noncolumnar cells. In a backward stepwise logistic regression analysis, features from the profile that predicted the confirmed CCC group included: (1) absence or minimality of diffuse sheets of grade 3 nuclei [P=0.025; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0266-0.363]; (2) absence or minimality of nuclear stratification in glands and papillae (P=0.040; 95% CI, -0.228 to -0.0054); and (3) glands and papillae lined by cuboidal to flat, noncolumnar cells (P=0.008; 95% CI, 0.0911-0.566). The 2 groups displayed significant overlap regarding a wide variety of features, and no single case displayed a full complement of potentially diagnostic features. Morphologic patterns associated with cases with very high levels of interobserver variability (defined as cases with ≥4 different diagnoses rendered for them, n=9) included the near-exclusive or exclusively solid pattern of clear cells (3/9) and glandular/papillary proliferations whose only CCC-like feature was the presence of clear cells (2/9). In conclusion, the diagnosis of endometrial carcinomas with clear cells by gynecologic pathologists is associated with a moderate level of interobserver variability. However, there is a morphologic profile that characterizes cases that gynecologic pathologists more uniformly classify as CCC, and the presence of these features is supportive of a CCC diagnosis in an endometrial carcinoma with clear cells. Cases that display broad and significant qualitative deviations from the aforementioned profile should prompt the consideration of a diagnosis other than CCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207