MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346685985 · doi:10.1111/apm.12533

International Society of Urological Pathology (<scp>ISUP</scp>) grading of prostate cancer – An <scp>ISUP</scp> consensus on contemporary grading

2016· editorial· en· W2346685985 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApmis · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)MedicineProstatePathologyProstate cancerCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) has issued guidelines for the grading of prostate cancer based on a consensus conference held in 2014. The recommendations resulting from the 2014 consensus conference were a further development of 2005 ISUP modified Gleason grading. In the 2014 system, morphological criteria are clarified, including updated definitions of Gleason pattern 4. In addition to the continued reporting of Gleason scores, we also recommend that Gleason scores ≤6, 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, 8 and 9-10, respectively, be reported as five groups, i.e. ISUP grades 1-5. This new grading system has the dual benefit of predicting patient outcome as well as facilitating patient communication.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.290 · 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