MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973452191 · doi:10.1038/s41379-019-0367-9

Interobserver variability in upfront dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the DCISion study

2019· article· en· W2973452191 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Dano, Serdar Altınay, Laurent Arnould, Noëlla Blétard, Cécile Colpaert, Franceska Dedeurwaerdere, Benjamin F. Dessauvagie, Valérie Duwel, Giuseppe Floris, Stephen B. Fox, Clara Gerosa, Shabnam Jaffer, Eline Kurpershoek, Magali Lacroix‐Triki, Andoni Laka, Kathleen Lambein, Gaëtan MacGrogan, Caterina Marchiò, Dolores Martin Martinez, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Dieter Peeters, Alberto Ravarino, Emily Reisenbichler, Erika Resetkova, Souzan Sanati, Anne‐Marie Schelfhout, Vera Schelfhout, Abeer M. Shaaban, Renata Sinke, Claudia Stanciu‐Pop, Claudia Stobbe, Carolien H. M. van Deurzen, Koen Van de Vijver, Anne‐Sophie Van Rompuy, Stéphanie Verschuere, Anne Vincent‐Salomon, Hannah Y. Wen, Caroline Bouzin, Christine Galant, Mieke Van Bockstal

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Pathology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Cancer InstituteFondation contre le Cancer
KeywordsMedicineDuctal carcinomaPathologyNuclear atypiaBreast cancerAtypiaConcordanceCarcinoma in situLobular carcinomaCarcinomaCancerInternal medicineImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueModern PathologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207