Accelerating type‐specific ovarian carcinoma research: Calculator for Ovarian Subtype Prediction (<scp>COSP</scp>) is a reliable high‐throughput tool for case review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The recent recognition that ovarian carcinoma is composed of five distinct disease entities has served to increase the value of accurate histotyping. Reliable identification of histotypes is essential for the success of studies testing novel therapies, as well as for biomarker discovery research. The aim of this study was to examine the utility of a nine-marker immunohistochemical (IHC) panel, designated the Calculator for Ovarian Subtype Prediction (COSP), to reliably reproduce the consensus diagnosis of two expert gynaecological pathologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 423 cases from the AGO-OVAR11 trial were evaluated using the COSP IHC panel, and compared to original diagnoses from >100 local contributing pathologists and independent expert gynaecopathology review. The overall concordance between COSP and expert review was 89%; in cases where a local pathologist's diagnosis was confirmed by COSP, the expert gynaecopathologist also agreed in 97.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of COSP into a high-throughput diagnostic review algorithm will decrease the need for expert review by identifying a small number of difficult cases that truly require expert review. This modification will serve to increase the efficiency of the diagnostic review process, which will probably serve to reduce operational costs and expedite translational studies on ovarian carcinoma.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".