MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479433975 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2015-0474-ra

Practical Strategies to Improve the Clinical Utility of the Dermatopathology Report

2016· review· en· W2479433975 on OpenAlexaff
Martin J. Trotter, Sheila Au, Karen Naert

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCalgary Laboratory ServicesProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatopathologyMedicineSubspecialtyTerminologyPathologyContext (archaeology)Medical diagnosisDermatologyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: -Dermatologists and subspecialty dermatopathologists, working together over many years, develop a common understanding of clinical information provided on the requisition and of terminology used in the pathology report. Challenges arise for pathologists without additional subspecialty training in dermatology/dermatopathology, and for any pathologist reporting skin biopsies for nondermatologists such as general practitioners or surgeons. OBJECTIVE: -To provide practical strategies to improve efficiency of dermatopathology sign-out, at the same time providing the clinician with clear diagnostic and prognostic information to guide patient management. DATA SOURCES: -The information outlined in this review is based on our own experiences with routine dermatopathology and dermatology practice, and review of English-language articles related to the selected topics discussed. CONCLUSIONS: -Using generic diagnoses for some benign lesions, listing pertinent negatives in the pathology report, and using logical risk management strategies when reporting on basal cell carcinoma, partial biopsies, or specimens with incomplete clinical information allow the pathologist to convey relevant and useful diagnostic information to the treating clinician.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207