Histologic Classification and Molecular Signature of Polymorphous Adenocarcinoma (PAC) and Cribriform Adenocarcinoma of Salivary Gland (CASG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polymorphous adenocarcinoma (PAC) shows histologic diversity with streaming and targetoid features whereas cribriform adenocarcinoma of salivary gland (CASG) demonstrates predominantly cribriform and solid patterns with glomeruloid structures and optically clear nuclei. Opinions diverge on whether CASG represents a separate entity or a variant of PAC. We aimed to assess the level of agreement among 25 expert Head and Neck pathologists in classifying these tumors. Digital slides of 48 cases were reviewed and classified as: PAC, CASG, tumors with ≥50% of papillary architecture (PAP), and tumors with indeterminate features (IND). The consensus diagnoses were correlated with a previously reported molecular alteration. The consensus diagnoses were PAC in 18/48, CASG in16/48, PAP in 3/48, and IND in 11/48. There was a fair interobserver agreement in classifying the tumors (κ=0.370). The full consensus was achieved in 3 (6%) cases, all of which were classified as PAC. A moderate agreement was reached for PAC (κ=0.504) and PAP (κ=0.561), and a fair agreement was reached for CASG (κ=0.390). IND had only slight diagnostic concordance (κ=0.091). PAC predominantly harbored PRKD1 hotspot mutation, whereas CASG was associated with fusion involving PRKD1, PRKD2, or PRKD3. However, such molecular events were not exclusive as 7% of PAC had fusion and 13% of CASG had mutation. In conclusion, a fair to moderate interobserver agreement can be achieved in classifying PAC and CASG. However, a subset (23%) showed indeterminate features and was difficult to place along the morphologic spectrum of PAC/CASG among expert pathologists. This may explain the controversy in classifying these tumors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".