Inter-Institutional Pathology Consultations for Breast Cancer: Impact on Clinical Oncology Therapy Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations favouring review of cancer pathology specimens for patients being treated at an institution other than the one that produced the initial pathology report, data regarding discordance rates and their potential clinical impact remain limited, particularly for breast cancer. At the QEII Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, it was routine practice to review histopathology when patients referred for adjuvant therapy had undergone their breast cancer surgery and pathology reporting at another institution. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate and clinical impact of discordance in inter-institutional pathology consultations for breast cancer in Nova Scotia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 100 randomly selected inter-institutional pathology consultations for breast cancer patients referred to the QEII in 2004. Cases were categorized as having either no discordance, discordance with no clinical impact, or discordance with potential for clinical impact. Cases with potential clinical impact were independently reviewed by 2 medical oncologists and 2 radiation oncologists, and the discordances were rated as having high, medium, or no clinical impact. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 93 cases that met the inclusion criteria. Of these 93 cases, 6 had no discordance, 7 had discordance with no clinical impact, and 80 had discordance with potential for clinical impact. Overall, 10 cases (11%) were rated as having either high or medium clinical impact, with agreement on the clinical impact ratings by oncologist reviewers in the same specialty. The remaining cases had either no clinical impact or disagreement on the clinical impact rating. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-institutional pathology consultations for breast cancer in Nova Scotia identified discordant findings with potential clinical impact as determined by oncologist reviewers. Further evaluation of inter-institutional pathology consultations and the impact on clinical decision-making is warranted.
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 | 0.026 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".