High interobserver variability and frequent overdiagnosis of dysplasia in fundic gland polyps can be improved by detecting atypia on the surface epithelium and an abrupt transition to non‐neoplastic cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Fundic gland polyps (FGPs) arise sporadically and in combination with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Criteria for distinguishing low-grade dysplasia (LGD) from regenerative atypia in FGPs are not well established. The aims of study were to determine: (i) interobserver variability in diagnosing LGD in FGPs; (ii) bias in diagnosing LGD in FAP patients; and (iii) stringent criteria for LGD in FGPs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five senior pathologists who were blinded to the clinical history reviewed 72 FAP-associated FGPs and 34 sporadic FGPs. Cases were classified as negative (score = 0) or positive (score = 1) for LGD. Each case was assigned a 'combined dysplasia score' (CDS) ranging from 0 to 5 to reflect all five opinions. Fleiss' kappa showed only moderate interobserver agreement (κ = 0.46). Forty-one FGPs were classified as negative for dysplasia by consensus (CDS = 0-1), including 10 (24%) originally diagnosed as LGD. In contrast, all 37 cases classified as LGD by consensus (CDS = 4-5) were originally diagnosed as LGD, indicating that overdiagnosis of dysplasia is more common than underdiagnosis (P = 0.0012). Cytological atypia in the surface epithelium and an abrupt transition between atypical and normal-appearing epithelium were the most sensitive (97% and 100%, respectively) and specific (100% and 98%, respectively) features of dysplasia (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Very good agreement was achieved when a diagnosis of dysplasia was based on the presence of both features (κ = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: There is high interobserver variability and a tendency to overdiagnose LGD in FGPs. Strict criteria requiring both surface atypia and abrupt transition for LGD in FGPs result in low interobserver variability.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".