Biomarker-Based Ovarian Carcinoma Typing: A Histologic Investigation in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian carcinoma is composed of five major histologic types, which associate with outcome and predict therapeutic response. Our aim was to evaluate histologic type assessments across the centers participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis (OTTA) consortium using an immunohistochemical (IHC) prediction model. METHODS: Tissue microarrays (TMA) and clinical data were available for 524 pathologically confirmed ovarian carcinomas. Centralized IHC was conducted for ARID1A, CDKN2A, DKK1, HNF1B, MDM2, PGR, TP53, TFF3, VIM, and WT1, and three histologic type assessments were compared: the original pathologic type, an IHC-based calculated type (termed TB_COSPv2), and a WT1-assisted TMA core review. RESULTS: The concordance between TB_COSPv2 type and original type was 73%. Applying WT1-assisted core review, the remaining 27% discordant cases subdivided into unclassifiable (6%), TB_COSPv2 error (6%), and original type error (15%). The largest discordant subgroup was classified as endometrioid carcinoma by original type and as high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) by TB_COSPv2. When TB_COSPv2 classification was used, the difference in overall survival of endometrioid carcinoma compared with HGSC became significant [RR 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.93; P = 0.021], consistent with previous reports. In addition, 71 cases with unclear original type could be histologically classified by TB_COSPv2. CONCLUSIONS: Research cohorts, particularly those across different centers within consortia, show significant variability in original histologic type diagnosis. Our IHC-based reclassification produced more homogeneous types with respect to outcome than original type. IMPACT: Biomarker-based classification of ovarian carcinomas is feasible, improves comparability of results across research studies, and can reclassify cases which lack reliable original pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".