Invasive pattern grading score designed as an independent prognostic indicator in oral squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the validity of an invasive pattern grading score (IPGS) developed for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) as a prognostic indicator and to elucidate the relationship between the IPGS and clinical parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: The IPGS was applied to a total of 153 cases of OSCC. There were significant correlations between IPGS and distant metastasis (P = 0.01) or recurrence (P = 0.001). However, there were no significant correlations between IPGS and gender, age, size or extent, location, status of lymph node metastasis, clinical staging, or histological grading. Cases of OSCC with higher IPGS were associated with poor patient survival (P < 0.001) and higher probability of tumour recurrence (P = 0.001). Intraobserver (kappa = 0.74) and interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.67) were very satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the validity of the IPGS, an indicator that is simple and easy to use. IPGS not only provides histological assessment of biological behaviour, but also offers an independent prognostic factor that may influence the treatment of OSCC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".