Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: validation of World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology grading
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: In 2012, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) introduced a novel grading system for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma. This system is incorporated into the latest World Health Organization renal tumour classification, being designated WHO/ISUP grading. This study was undertaken to compare WHO/ISUP and Fuhrman grading and to validate WHO/ISUP grading as a prognostic parameter in a series of clear cell RCC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis of 681 cases of ccRCC showed that 144 tumours could not be assigned a Fuhrman grade on the basis of ambiguous grading features. The application of WHO/ISUP grading resulted in a general down-grading of cases when compared with Fuhrman grading. In a sub-group of 374 cases, for which outcome data were available, 9.3% were WHO/ISUP grade 1, 50.3% were grade 2, 24.1% grade 3 and 16.3% grade 4, while the distribution of Fuhrman grades was 0.4% grade 1, 48.7% grade 2, 29.4% grade 3 and 21.5% grade 4. There were no recurrence/metastases amongst patients with WHO/ISUP grade 1 tumours and there was a significant difference in outcome for WHO/ISUP grades 2, 3 and 4. For Fuhrman grading the cancer-free survival was not significantly different for grade 2 and grade 3 tumours. On multivariate analysis WHO/ISUP grade and pT staging category were found to retain prognostic significance. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that FG cannot be applied in >20% of cases of ccRCC and the WHO/ISUP provides superior prognostic information.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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