Histopathological growth patterns of liver metastasis: updated consensus guidelines for pattern scoring, perspectives, and recent mechanistic insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first consensus guidelines for scoring the histopathological growth patterns (HGPs) of liver metastases were established in 2017. Since then, numerous studies have applied these guidelines, have further substantiated the potential clinical value of the HGPs in patients with liver metastases from various tumour types and are starting to shed light on the biology of the distinct HGPs. In the present guidelines, we give an overview of these studies, discuss novel strategies for predicting the HGPs of liver metastases, such as deep learning algorithms for whole slide histopathology images and medical imaging, and highlight liver metastasis animal models that exhibit features of the different HGPs. Based on a pooled analysis of large cohorts of patients with liver-metastatic colorectal cancer, we propose a new cut-off to categorize patients according to the HGPs. An up-to-date standard method for HGP assessment within liver metastases is also presented with the aim of incorporating HGPs into the decision-making processes surrounding the treatment of patients with liver metastatic cancer. Finally, we propose hypotheses on the cellular and molecular mechanisms that drive the biology of the different HGPs, opening some exciting pre-clinical and clinical research perspectives.
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 | 0.050 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".