Concordance of HER2 Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Using Tissue Microarray in Breast Cancer
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
AIM: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are common methods for assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cohort of 498 consecutive patients with breast cancer, we examined concordance between IHC and FISH for HER2 on tissue microarray (TMA) sections. In a subset of 116 specimens, we examined HER2 concordance from the block used for diagnostics and a randomly-chosen additional block (a proxy of the core biopsy). RESULTS: Overall concordance between both methods on TMA sections was 93.8% and between HER2, determined on diagnostic and additional blocks, was 93.6% for IHC and 98.0% for FISH. CONCLUSION: Since some cases were discordant, we suggest that both methods be used for HER2 assessment. The lower concordance rate between diagnostic and additional blocks using IHC compared to FISH suggests a greater variability of IHC staining across tumor regions than for FISH results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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