Proposal of a 2-Tier Histologic Grading System for Canine Cutaneous Mast Cell Tumors to More Accurately Predict Biological Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, prognostic and therapeutic determinations for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (MCTs) are primarily based on histologic grade. However, the use of different grading systems by veterinary pathologists and institutional modifications make the prognostic value of histologic grading highly questionable. To evaluate the consistency of microscopic grading among veterinary pathologists and the prognostic significance of the Patnaik grading system, 95 cutaneous MCTs from 95 dogs were graded in a blinded study by 28 veterinary pathologists from 16 institutions. Concordance among veterinary pathologists was 75% for the diagnosis of grade 3 MCTs and less than 64% for the diagnosis of grade 1 and 2 MCTs. To improve concordance among pathologists and to provide better prognostic significance, a 2-tier histologic grading system was devised. The diagnosis of high-grade MCTs is based on the presence of any one of the following criteria: at least 7 mitotic figures in 10 high-power fields (hpf); at least 3 multinucleated (3 or more nuclei) cells in 10 hpf; at least 3 bizarre nuclei in 10 hpf; karyomegaly (ie, nuclear diameters of at least 10% of neoplastic cells vary by at least two-fold). Fields with the highest mitotic activity or with the highest degree of anisokaryosis were selected to assess the different parameters. According to the novel grading system, high-grade MCTs were significantly associated with shorter time to metastasis or new tumor development, and with shorter survival time. The median survival time was less than 4 months for high-grade MCTs but more than 2 years for low-grade MCTs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".