Agreement Among Surgical Pathologists Evaluating Routine Histologic Sections of Digits Amputated from Cats and Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agreement among pathologists interpreting histologic specimens is an area of interest within human pathology, but little work in this area has been reported in the veterinary literature. Agreement among pathologists evaluating routine histologic sections of amputated digits from cats and dogs submitted to multiple diagnostic centers was examined. Histologic sections from surgical specimens were reviewed in a blinded fashion by two pathologists, and a comparison to the original diagnosis, as stated in the diagnostic report, was recorded. A total of 513 cases were reviewed, and complete agreement was reached in 409 (79.7%). Of the 104 instances of disagreement, 77 (74.0%) were considered to be of clinical significance. The diagnosis of keratoacanthoma was disagreed with in 19 of 21 diagnoses (90.4%). No other individual diagnosis was similarly disputed. The overall level of disagreement is large and is similar to that reported in human pathology and suggests that further study of this issue would be useful in veterinary pathology.
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 | 0.036 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".