Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate concordance, upgrades and downgrades from biopsy to prostatectomy, and associated clincopathological parameters, using the recently proposed Gleason grade groups/International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grades. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 2529 patients who underwent biopsy and prostatectomy in our institution from 2005 to 2014. A global grade group (GR)/Gleason score (GS) was used. Factors associated with GR1/GS ≤6 upgrades and GR2/GS3 + 4 downgrades were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. The final GR/GS was identical with the biopsy GR/GS in 59.3% of cases, with the highest concordance for GR2 and GR5 and lowest for GR4. In GR1-5, identical grades were found in GR: (i) 47.6%, (ii) 73.6%, (iii) 52.8%, (iv) 21.4% and (v) 68.3%, respectively. Final GR was upgraded in 32.3% cases; in GR1-4: (i) 52.4%, (ii) 19.0%, (iii) 16.4% and (iv) 32.9%. Most frequent upgrades occurred from biopsy GR1 to prostatectomy GR2. A final GR downgrade was found in 8.3% cases. For individual GR2-5 the downgrades were found in GR: (i) 7.4%, (ii) 30.8%, (iii) 45.7% and (iv) 31.7%. Upgrades of biopsy GR1 were associated with: age ≥60 years, PSA density ≥0.2, ≥2 positive cores, ≥5% core tissue involvement and perineural invasion [area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.699]. Downgrades of biopsy GR2 correlated inversely with: age ≥60 years, PSA >10 ng/ml and ≥2 positive core (area under ROC curve 0.623). CONCLUSIONS: We found highest concordance for GR2 and GR5 and lowest for GR4. The baseline clinical variables associated with GR1 upgrades and GR2 downgrades may play a role in clinical decision-making.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it