MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028707290 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2009.071225

Endometrial carcinoma: controversies in histopathological assessment of grade and tumour cell type

2010· review· en· W2028707290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)CarcinomaSerous fluidSerous carcinomaRadiation therapyEndometrial cancerPathologyImmunohistochemistryOncologyClear cellInternal medicineCancerBiologyOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histopathological assessment of tumour grade and cell type is central to the management of endometrial carcinoma, guiding the extent of surgery and the use of adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Endometrioid carcinomas are usually low grade but high-grade examples are encountered, and they have a significantly worse prognosis, similar to that of high-grade subtypes such as serous and clear cell carcinoma. This article reviews the various grading systems that have been proposed for use with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, and discusses the recent progress in cell type assignment, including the use of immunohistochemistry as a diagnostic adjunct.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it