An Immunohistochemical Algorithm for Ovarian Carcinoma Typing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are 5 major histotypes of ovarian carcinomas. Diagnostic typing criteria have evolved over time, and past cohorts may be misclassified by current standards. Our objective was to reclassify the recently assembled Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource and the Alberta Ovarian Tumor Type cohorts using immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers and to develop an IHC algorithm for ovarian carcinoma histotyping. A total of 1626 ovarian carcinoma samples from the Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource and the Alberta Ovarian Tumor Type were subjected to a reclassification by comparing the original with the predicted histotype. Histotype prediction was derived from a nominal logistic regression modeling using a previously reclassified cohort (N=784) with the binary input of 8 IHC markers. Cases with discordant original or predicted histotypes were subjected to arbitration. After reclassification, 1762 cases from all cohorts were subjected to prediction models (χ Automatic Interaction Detection, recursive partitioning, and nominal logistic regression) with a variable IHC marker input. The histologic type was confirmed in 1521/1626 (93.5%) cases of the Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource and the Alberta Ovarian Tumor Type cohorts. The highest misclassification occurred in the endometrioid type, where most of the changes involved reclassification from endometrioid to high-grade serous carcinoma, which was additionally supported by mutational data and outcome. Using the reclassified histotype as the endpoint, a 4-marker prediction model correctly classified 88%, a 6-marker 91%, and an 8-marker 93% of the 1762 cases. This study provides statistically validated, inexpensive IHC algorithms, which have versatile applications in research, clinical practice, and clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".