Data Set for Reporting of Endometrial Carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting is a quadripartite alliance formed by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Royal College of Pathologists of the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting was formed with a view to reducing the global burden of cancer data set development and reduplication of the effort by different international institutions that commission, publish, and maintain standardized cancer-reporting data sets. The resultant standardization of cancer reporting would be expected to benefit not only those countries directly involved in the collaboration, but also others not in a position to develop their own data sets. The main objective of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting is to develop an evidence-based-reporting data set for each cancer site, and to this end, a project to develop data sets for prostate, endometrium, and lung cancers and malignant melanoma was piloted by the quadripartite group. This review describes the process of development of the endometrial cancer data set.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".