Comparison of HER2/<i>neu</i>Status Assessed by Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction and Immunohistochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prospectively evaluated a series of 254 breast cancers by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry using 3 antibodies: HercepTest, CB11, and TAB250. DNA was extracted from a 10-micron tumor section for PCR, and 4-micron serial sections were taken from the same block for immunohistochemistry. The immunohistochemical results were scored using a semiquantitative immunohistochemical system. A positive tumor by immunohistochemistry had a score of 5 or more. The manufacturer's recommended scoring system was used for the HercepTest. Tumors were positive for gene amplification if the ratio of the HER2/neu gene to control gene after normalization was 2 or more. Of 254 cases, 61 showed gene amplification. For immunohistochemistry, 23% of tumors were positive with CB11, 27% with TAB250, and 37% with the HercepTest. Results for each antibody were compared with PCR results. The overall concordance for the HercepTest was 82%, which was significantly lower than that for CB11 (88%) or TAB250 (87%). The specificity for the HercepTest was 80% compared with 90% for TAB250 and 93% for CB11, while the positive predictive value for the HercepTest was 57% compared with 71% and 76% for TAB250 and CB11, respectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".