The Added Value of Pathology Review in Vulvar Cancer: Results From a Population-based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a population-based patterns of care study of vulvar carcinoma. This paper describes the changes in reporting based on pathology review. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study. We obtained all pathology records available from the provincial cancer registry for primary invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Pathology reviews were conducted centrally by a group of gynecologic pathologists and were identified during abstraction. Corresponding original reports were matched to pathology review reports based on accession numbers. We compared the reported value for presence/absence of invasion, grade, depth, thickness, size, lymphovascular space invasion, peripheral margin status, and deep margin status in the original and review report. A total of 1011 vulvar resection reports were identified. From these, we identified 316 pairs of original/review reports. Missing data were common but improved in the reviews. In total, 55 (17%) reports had at least 1 change from the original to the review based on presence of invasion, depth, lymphovascular space invasion, or margin. When we included reports where a variable was missing in the original but then completed in the review, there were clinically relevant changes in 210 reports (66%). Vulvar carcinoma is a rare diagnosis and pathology reviews resulted in potentially important clinical changes in a significant proportion of cases. Referral pathologists play an important role in contributing to high-quality clinical decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".