Diagnosis of "cribriform" prostatic adenocarcinoma: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of cribriform Gleason pattern 4 (CrP4) prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) is important due to its independent association with adverse clinical outcomes and as a growing body of evidence suggests that it impacts clinical decision making in PCa management. To identify reproducible features for diagnosis of CrP4, we assessed interobserver agreement among 27 experienced urologic pathologists of 60 digital images from 44 radical prostatectomies (RP) that represented a broad spectrum of potential CrP4. The following morphologic features were correlated with the consensus diagnosis (defined as 75% agreement) for each image: partial vs. transluminal glandular bridging, intraglandular stroma, <12 vs. ≥12 lumina, well vs. poorly formed lumina, mucin (mucinous fibroplasia, extravasation, or extracellular pool), size (compared to benign glands and number of lumina), number of attachments with gland border by tumor cells forming a "glomeruloid-like" pattern, a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland occupying <50% of glandular circumference, central nerve, dense (cell mass occupying >50% of luminal space) vs. loose, and regular vs. irregular contour. Interobserver reproducibility for the overall diagnostic agreement was fair (k=0.40). Large CrP4 had better agreement (k=0.49) compared to small CrP4 (k=0.40). Transluminal bridging, dense cellular proliferation, a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland occupying <50% of gland circumference, lack of intraglandular mucin, and lack of contact between the majority of intraglandular cells with stroma were significantly associated with consensus for CrP4. In contrast, partial bridging, majority of intraglandular cells in contact with stroma, mucinous fibroplasia, only one attachment to the gland border by tumor cells forming a "glomeruloid-like" pattern, and a clear luminal space along the periphery of gland accounting for >50% of the glandular circumference were associated with consensus against CrP4. In summary, we identified reproducible morphological features for and against CrP4 diagnosis, which could be used to refine and standardize the diagnostic criteria for CrP4.
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 | 0.044 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".