ISUP Consensus Definition of Cribriform Pattern Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of a cribriform pattern is now recognized as a clinically important, independent adverse prognostic indicator for prostate cancer. For this reason the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently recommended its inclusion in standard reporting. In order to improve interobserver agreement as to the diagnosis of cribriform patterns, the ISUP assembled an international panel of 12 expert urogenital pathologists for the purpose of drafting a consensus definition of cribriform pattern in prostate cancer, and provide their opinions on a set of 32 images and on potential diagnostic criteria. These images were selected by the 2 nonvoting convenors of the study and included the main categories where disagreement was anticipated. The Delphi method was applied to promote consensus among the 12 panelists in their review of the images during 2 initial rounds of the study. Following a virtual meeting, convened to discuss selected images and diagnostic criteria, the following definition for cribriform pattern in prostate cancer was approved: "A confluent sheet of contiguous malignant epithelial cells with multiple glandular lumina that are easily visible at low power (objective magnification ×10). There should be no intervening stroma or mucin separating individual or fused glandular structures" together with a set of explanatory notes. We believe this consensus definition to be practical and that it will facilitate reproducible recognition and reporting of this clinically important pattern commonly seen in prostate cancer. The images and the results of the final Delphi round are available at the ISUP website as an educational slide set (https://isupweb.org/isup/blog/slideshow/cribriform-slide-deck/).
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 | 0.073 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".