MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316766144 · doi:10.1097/pai.0b013e3182810b8e

Predicting OncoDx Recurrence Scores With Immunohistochemical Markers

2013· article· en· W2316766144 on OpenAlexaff
Scott H. Bradshaw, Dale Pidutti, Denis Gravel, Xinni Song, Esmeralda Celia Marginean, Susan J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryMedicineInternal medicineOncologyBreast cancerPopulationCohortCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent reports suggest that immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers can be used to give prognostic information in breast cancer that is similar to that contained in the Genomic Health Inc. OncoDx recurrence score (Onco-RS). The goal of this study is to examine the potential prognostic value of a score derived from results of a simple set of IHC tests in the prediction of the Onco-RS. A score (IHC-RS) was derived to predict the Onco-RS using IHC-based quantitative and semiquantitative results from a subset of markers selected from those used in the generation of an Onco-RS score. The patient population consists of a retrospectively identified cohort of 158 women with ER-positive, HER2neu-negative breast cancer who completed OncoDx testing. A predictive model was developed to generate the IHC-RS using stepwise multiple regression incorporating Ki67 percentage and semiquantitative ER and PR scores. Using only these 3 IHC markers, the IHC-RS predicted 62% of the Onco-RS variability (adjusted R=0.624, P=0.004). In addition, analysis of outliers in the correlation between the IHC-RS and the Onco-RS reveals the possibility of sampling error as a drawback of the Onco-RS. This is contrasted against potential interlab and intralab variability and preanalytic issues that may negatively impact the implementation of an IHC-RS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207