Best Practices Recommendations in the Application of Immunohistochemistry in Urologic Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) participated in a half-day consensus conference to discuss guidelines and recommendations regarding best practice approaches to use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in differential diagnostic situations in urologic pathology, including bladder, prostate, testis and, kidney lesions. Four working groups, selected by the ISUP leadership, identified several high-interest topics based on common or relevant challenging diagnostic situations and proposed best practice recommendations, which were discussed by the membership. The overall summary of the discussions and the consensus opinion forms the basis of a series of articles, one for each organ site. This Special Article summarizes the overall recommendations made by the four working groups. It is anticipated that this ISUP effort will be valuable to the entire practicing community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic urologic 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 | 0.137 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".