MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987633456 · doi:10.21037/atm.2019.09.143

Immunohistochemical screening for the diagnosis of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma and fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma

2019· letter· en· W2987633456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kiril Trpkov, Farshid Siadat

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenal cell carcinomaImmunohistochemistryPathologyMedicineSuccinate dehydrogenaseKidneyClear cellInternal medicineBiologyEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal tumors represent heterogeneous and diverse group of neoplasms. The 2013 Vancouver classification of renal tumors and the subsequent 2016 WHO classification represent the foundation of our current knowledge on renal tumors (1). Recent advances have significantly contributed to expanding the morphologic, immunohistochemical, molecular, epidemiologic and clinical features of several novel and emerging renal tumors (2). For example, new evidence has recently emerged on two renal entities—succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC (FH-deficient RCC). The awareness of these novel renal neoplasms is not only essential for practicing pathologists, but also for clinicians and for patient management, because the navigation through this complex and evolving field is a challenging one, even in centers with large volumes of renal tumors. Importantly, the recognition of these novel renal entities rests mainly on their morphologic recognition, with the aid of immunohistochemistry (IHC).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207