Tissue Microarray Is a Reliable Tool for the Evaluation of HER2 Amplification in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We examined an economical method for evaluating the amplification of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene in breast cancer specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared HER2 amplification determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on whole-tissue (WT) blocks used for diagnostic and on tissue microarray (TMA) sections for a cohort of 521 consecutive patients with breast cancer. In a subset of 116 patients, we examined HER2 concordance from the WT section and a TMA section from a randomly chosen additional block (a proxy of the core biopsy). RESULTS: Overall concordance for HER2 amplification between WT and TMA sections was 98.2%, and between sections from WT and from the additional block was 99.0%. CONCLUSION: The high concordance rates support the use of TMA for the evaluation of HER2 amplification in breast cancer and suggest that FISH can be used to assess HER2 using core biopsies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".