Blood and lymphatic vessel invasion in pT1 colorectal cancer: an international concordance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study was performed to evaluate the concordance in pathological assessments of blood and lymphatic vessel invasion (BLI) in pT1 colorectal cancers and to assess the effect of diagnostic criterion on consistency in the assessment of BLI. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients undergoing surgical resection of pT1 colorectal cancers were entered into this study. H&E-stained, D2-40-stained and elastica-stained slides from the tumours were examined by 18 pathologists from seven countries. The 40 cases were divided into two cohorts with 20 cases each. In cohort 1, pathologists diagnosed BLI using criteria familiar to them; all Japanese pathologists used a criterion of BLI from the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR). In cohort 2, all pathologists used the JSCCR diagnostic criterion. RESULTS: In cohort 1, diagnostic concordance was moderate in the US/Canadian and European pathologists. There were no differences in the consistency compared with results for Japanese pathologists, and no improvement in the diagnostic concordance was found for using the JSCCR criterion. However, in cohort 2, the JSCCR criterion decreased the consistency of BLI diagnosis in the US/Canadian and European pathologists. The level of decreased consistency in the assessment of BLI was different between the US/Canadian and European pathologists. CONCLUSIONS: A uniform criterion strongly influences the diagnostic consistency of BLI but may not always improve the concordance. Further study is required to achieve an objective diagnosis of BLI in colorectal cancer. The varying effects of diagnostic criterion on the pathologists from Japan, the USA/Canada and Europe might reflect varied interpretations of the criterion. Internationally accepted criterion should be developed by participants from around the world.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".