MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accuracy of kidney cancer diagnosis and histological subtype within cancer registry data.

2016· article· en· W2589279080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Wood, Jeff Himmelman, Kara Thompson, Jennifer Merrimen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer registryChromophobe cellKidney cancerNot Otherwise SpecifiedCancerNomogramPopulationMedical diagnosisPathologyPathologicalNephrectomyCohortRenal cell carcinomaClear cellInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

606 Background: Cancer registries are the mainstay for population-based cancer statistics including incidence and cancer type. In Canada, each province captures this data in provincial registries including the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry (NSCR).The goal of this study was to describe data from the NSCR about method of diagnosis and kidney cancer (KC) pathology and compare it to the actual pathology reports to determine the accuracy of diagnosis and histological subtype assignment. Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with KC in the NSCR with an ICD-10-CM code C64.9 (malignant neoplasm of unspecified kidney, except renal pelvis) within the largest provincial metropolitan area from 2006-2010. Method of KC diagnosis (clinical, radiologic, histology, or autopsy) was recorded as was the pathological diagnosis based on WHO classification. All non-clear cell KC (nonccKC) diagnosis from the registry were compared to the actual pathology report (and pathology re-review when necessary) for comparison. Results: 733 pts make up the study cohort. 81.2% of patients were diagnosed based on nephrectomy, 11.5% on radiography, 6.5 % biopsy, and 0.8% autopsy. By registry data 53.1% had clear cell, 20.2% KC not otherwise specified (NOS), 12.7% papillary, 3.8% chromophobe, and many other nonccKC. By pathology reports, 62.2% had clear cell, 13.4% papillary, 4.4% chromophobe, only 2% KC NOS (because most radiological diagnosis were classified this way). A large number of pathological diagnoses make up the other nonccKC and discrepancies between registry data and pathology reports will be described and compared in detail. Conclusions: Registry data is commonly used to report cancer statistics. Registry data may not be accurate for the true incidence of KC since 11.5% were based on radiology alone. Clear cell KC made up 53% of registry diagnosis but 62% on pathology report review. Although papillary and chromophobe incidence did not vary a lot, other types of nonccKC did. This registry data did not differentiate between papillary type I and II. NonccKC should not be considered one entity. One must be aware of the gaps in registry data for KC statistics including overall diagnosis, clear cell and nonccKC subtypes.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207