MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332171700 · doi:10.1097/pai.0000000000000001

Validation of EP1 Antibody Clone for Estrogen Receptor Immunohistochemistry in Breast Cancer

2014· article· en· W2332171700 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Diorio, Sophie Laberge, Chantal Caron, Louise Provencher, Jean‐Charles Hogue, François Sanschagrin

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital du Saint-SacrementCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrogen receptorclone (Java method)ImmunohistochemistryBreast cancerMedicineAntibodyCancerInternal medicineOncologyEstrogenCancer researchBiologyImmunologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estrogen receptor (ER) tumor's status is critical for breast cancer management. A new rabbit antibody clone, EP1, is now available for ER status determination. The objective was to validate the EP1 antibody clone for its use in breast cancer ER status determination in a clinical setting against the previous standard, SP1. EP1 clone was assessed in 130 consecutive cases, including 50 ER-negative (<1% ER expression), 13 ER-low-positive (1% to 9% ER expression), and 67 ER-positive (≥10% ER expression). Using EP1 versus SP1, positive agreement (sensibility) was 92.5% and negative agreement (specificity) was 100%, leading to an overall agreement of 95.4%. All discordant cases (n=6) were ER-low-positive. SP1 was remeasured in 13 ER-low-positive and in 11 ER-negative cases. Overall agreement between SP1 initial tumor status and reassessment was 70.8% in those negative and low-positive cases. In conclusion, EP1 antibody has been validated for use in breast cancer with a positive agreement ≥90% and a negative agreement ≥95%, as recommended. Also, overall agreement between EP1 and SP1 was as good as between the SP1 initial status and SP1 reassessment.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207