MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245528223 · doi:10.5858/2010-0380-oar1.1

Development of an Evidence-Based Approach to External Quality Assurance for Breast Cancer Hormone Receptor Immunohistochemistry: Comparison of Reference Values

2011· article· en· W4245528223 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikita Makretsov, C. Blake Gilks, Reza Alaghehbandan, J. R. Garratt, Louise Quenneville, Joel Mercer, Dragana Palavdzic, Emina Torlakovic

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceBreast cancerProgesterone receptorContext (archaeology)Tissue microarrayEstrogen receptorMedicineEstrogenGold standard (test)Internal medicineGynecologyOncologyImmunohistochemistryPathologyCancerBiologyExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context .—External quality assurance and proficiency testing programs for breast cancer predictive biomarkers are based largely on traditional ad hoc design; at present there is no universal consensus on definition of a standard reference value for samples used in external quality assurance programs. Objective .—To explore reference values for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry in order to develop an evidence-based analytic platform for external quality assurance. Design .—There were 31 participating laboratories, 4 of which were previously designated as “expert” laboratories. Each participant tested a tissue microarray slide with 44 breast carcinomas for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor and submitted it to the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control Program for analysis. Nuclear staining in 1% or more of the tumor cells was a positive score. Five methods for determining reference values were compared. Results .—All reference values showed 100% agreement for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor scores, when indeterminate results were excluded. Individual laboratory performance (agreement rates, test sensitivity, test specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and κ value) was very similar for all reference values. Identification of suboptimal performance by all methods was identical for 30 of 31 laboratories. Estrogen receptor assessment of 1 laboratory was discordant: agreement was less than 90% for 3 of 5 reference values and greater than 90% with the use of 2 other reference values. Conclusions .—Various reference values provide equivalent laboratory rating. In addition to descriptive feedback, our approach allows calculation of technical test sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values, agreement rates, and κ values to guide corrective actions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.543
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.583
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5430.583
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0230.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0110.009
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207