MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139858249 · doi:10.1309/w00t-2ca8-mh68-rvdv

Telepathology for Routine Light Microscopic and Frozen Section Diagnosis

2002· article· en· W2139858249 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Chorneyko, Ronald Giesler, Deborah Sabatino, Catherine Ross, Francesca V. Lobo, Hafez Shuhaibar, Vicky Chen, Leela Elavathil, Franco DeNardi, Saira Ansari, Samih Salama, Victoria LeBlanc, Geoff Norman, Brian Sheridan, Robert H. Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelepathologyFrozen section procedureNuclear medicineMedicineSignificant differenceMedical diagnosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telepathology (TP) uses telecommunication linkages to electronically capture, store, retrieve, and transmit images to distant sites. We assessed the feasibility of a dynamic real-time TP system for light microscopic (LM) diagnosis of anatomic pathology specimens, including frozen sections. Six pathologists, in 2 separate periods, read a set of 160 retrospectively retrieved slides (80 of which were frozen sections) by TP and LM. Reading times were recorded. Diagnoses were compared with the reference diagnosis (established by a group of 5 independent pathologists) and graded on a scale of 0 to 2 (2, correct; 1, incorrect but no clinical impact; 0, incorrect with clinical impact). Overall, LM was more accurate than TP compared with the reference diagnosis (score, 1.68 vs 1.54). There was no difference in accuracy between frozen section and paraffin-embedded tissue. Intraobserver agreement ranged from 82.5% to 88.2%. The average reading time was 6.0 minutes for TP and 1.4 minutes for LM. During the study, reading time decreased for TP but not for LM. These results show that despite marginally lower accuracy and longer reading times, TP isfeasible for routine light microscopic diagnosis, including frozen sections.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207