MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077224066 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e3181573aaf

Atypical Cellular Blue Nevi (Cellular Blue Nevi With Atypical Features): Lack of Consensus for Diagnosis and Distinction From Cellular Blue Nevi and Malignant Melanoma (“Malignant Blue Nevus”)

2008· article· en· W2077224066 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

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlue nevusMelanomaMedicineNevusMelanocytic nevusDermatologySuperficial spreading melanomaPathologyLesionDysplastic nevus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distinction of cellular blue nevi (CBN) with atypical features ["atypical" CBN (ACBN)] from conventional CBN and malignant melanomas related to or derived from CBN remains a difficult problem. Here, we report on the diagnosis of various cellular blue melanocytic neoplasms by 14 dermatopathologists who routinely examine melanocytic lesions. Three parameters were assessed: (1) for between rater analyses, we calculated interobserver agreement by the kappa statistic (regardless of whether the diagnosis was correct). (2) For each individual lesion, we reported whether a majority agreement (>50%) was reached and, if so, whether the majority agreed with the gold standard diagnosis, derived from standardized histopathologic criteria for melanoma, definitive outcome such as metastatic event or death of disease, or disease-free follow-up for > or =4 years. (3) For the individual pathologists, we calculated sensitivity and specificity for each type of lesion. The study set included 26 melanocytic lesions: (1) 6 malignant melanomas developing in or with attributes of CBN; (2) 11 CBN with atypical features and indeterminate biologic potential (ACBN); (3) 8 conventional CBN; and (4) 1 common BN. The kappa values for interrater agreement varied from 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.45, 0.58) for melanoma to 0.02 (0.05, 0.08) for ACBN and 0.20 (0.13, 0.28) for CBN. The kappa for all lesions was 0.25 (0.22, 0.28). The pathologists' sensitivities were 68.6% (61.0%, 76.1%) for melanoma, 33.1% (21.0%, 45.2%) for ACBN, and 44.6% (29.0%, 60.3%) for CBN. The specificities were 65.7% (55.8%, 75.6%) for melanoma, 84.7% (77.3%, 92.2%) for ACBN, and 89.9% (82.7%, 97.1%) for CBN. Overall, greater than 50% of the pathologists agreed and were correct in their diagnosis 38.5% (10 lesions) of the time. There was a majority agreement, but with an incorrect diagnosis, another 26.9% (7 lesions) of the time. Six of the 7 majority agreements with an incorrect diagnosis were for ACBN lesions. In summary, the results of our study indicate that there is substantial confusion and disagreement among experienced histopathologists about the definitions and biologic nature of cellular blue melanocytic neoplasms particularly those thought to have atypical features ("atypical" CBN).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · 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