Consensus development of a histopathological classification system for chronic prostatic inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized histopathological classification system for chronic prostatitis (standardized description of prostatic inflammatory infiltrates) based on a literature review, extensive prospective evaluations in two recognized prostatitis research centres and widespread consensus of international urological centres identified as having major expertise or interest in chronic prostatitis. METHODS: Relevant articles for review were identified by a Medline search undertaken by the Cochrane Review Group in Prostate Diseases and Urologic Malignancies, and cross-checking bibliographies of retrieved studies, reviews, book chapters and abstracts of the American Urological Association and International Prostatitis Collaborative Network Annual Meetings. Initial drafts were based on classification systems independently developed by the Prostatitis Research Centers at Queen's University in Canada and University of Washington in the USA. A collaborative draft was distributed to 20 urological/pathological clinical centres who participated in the North American Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network and First International Prostatitis Collaborative Network. A consensus classification system was then distributed to the participating panel for acceptance. RESULTS: The literature review identified a reasonably consistent description of inflammatory infiltrate locations and patterns that were further incorporated into the draft based on the Queen's University and University of Washington proposals. Eighteen (90%) of the identified Prostatitis Centers participated in the revision of the draft and the final consensus process. The final consensus document classifies prostatic inflammation according to its extent and grade/severity in each tissue compartment (location). Conclusion The consensus of the expert panel was that this classification system can be used in the evaluation of prostatic inflammation in prostate biopsies, transurethral resected prostate chips or prostatectomy specimens. A standardized accepted framework to describe histopathological prostate inflammation will prove useful in evaluating prostate disease.
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 | 0.177 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".