MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334856590 · doi:10.1097/pai.0000000000000039

Predicting OncoDX Recurrence Scores With Immunohistochemical Markers

2014· article· en· W2334856590 on OpenAlexaff
Scott H. Bradshaw, Dale Pidutti, Denis Gravel, Xinni Song, Susan J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineEstrogen receptorOncologyEstrogenPopulationCohortCancerGynecology

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). Our own previous work confirmed that an IHC model based on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Ki67 predicts 62% of the Onco-RS variability. Other markers used in the Onco-RS include proteins thought to increase tumoral invasive potential, and one such marker is matrix metalloproteinase-11, also called stromelysin 3 (ST3). The goal of this study is to examine the additional value of including ST3 in an IHC-based model that also includes ER, PR, and Ki67 in predicting the Onco-RS, as compared with an IHC model based only on ER, PR, and Ki67 (IHC-RS). The patient population consists of a retrospectively identified cohort of 91 women with ER-positive, HER2neu-negative breast cancer who completed OncoDX testing. Using stepwise multiple regression incorporating Ki67 percentage and semiquantitative ER, PR, and ST3 scores, the ST3 score was not statistically significant.

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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207