International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current World Health Organization (WHO) classification for endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) is based on descriptive morphologic characteristics; however, it does not fully reflect our current knowledge of the diverse pathogenesis of cervical glandular neoplasia. A novel classification system, the International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC), which incorporates etiology and biological behavior into the morphologic scheme, has been recently proposed. We aimed to validate the IECC by assessing its interobserver reproducibility in comparison to the WHO system. A cohort of 75 EAs was reviewed independently by 7 gynecologic pathologists and categorized following IECC and WHO criteria based on hematoxylin and eosin material alone and after immunohistochemistry results for p16, PR, p53, Napsin-A, vimentin, CDX2, and GATA3 were provided. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in situ hybridization and polymerase chain reaction results were compared with consensus diagnoses. IECC was superior to WHO in terms of interobserver agreement with κ=0.46 versus 0.3, respectively, on hematoxylin and eosin review and κ=0.51 versus 0.33, respectively, with immunohistochemistry. Under the IECC, 73 (97%) of EAs had majority agreement (≥4 reviewers in agreement) whereas 42 (56%) had perfect agreement (7/7 reviewers in agreement). Conversely, WHO showed majority agreement in 56 (75%) and perfect agreement in only 7 (10%) EAs. Reproducibility was poor in HPV-related WHO types (usual κ=0.36, mucinous not otherwise specified κ=0.13, intestinal κ=0.31, villoglandular κ=0.21) and good in major HPV-unrelated categories (gastric type κ=0.63, clear cell κ=0.81, mesonephric κ=0.5). Classification as per the IECC had excellent correlation with HPV status (by RNA in situ hybridization or polymerase chain reaction). We have shown that the IECC has superior interobserver agreement compared with the WHO classification system, and that distinction between HPV-related and HPV-unrelated EA can be made with good reproducibility and excellent prediction of HPV status. WHO morphologic variants of HPV-related EA are poorly reproducible. Conversely, agreement is high among important high-risk HPV-unrelated subtypes. Thus, our results further support replacing the current WHO classification with the IECC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".