Evaluation of a Probability-Based Predictive Tool on Pathologist Agreement Using Urinary Bladder as a Pilot Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inter-pathologist variation is widely recognized across human and veterinary pathology and is often compounded by missing animal or clinical information on pathology submission forms. Variation in pathologist threshold levels of resident inflammatory cells in the tissue of interest can further decrease inter-pathologist agreement. This study applied a predictive modeling tool to bladder histology slides that were assessed by four pathologists: first without animal and clinical information, then with this information, and finally using the predictive tool. All three assessments were performed twice, using digital whole-slide images (WSI) and then glass slides. Results showed marked variation in pathologists' interpretation of bladder slides, with kappa agreement values of 7-37% without any animal or clinical information, 23-37% with animal signalment and history, and 31-42% when our predictive tool was applied, for digital WSI and glass slides. The concurrence of test pathologists to the reference diagnosis was 60% overall. This study provides a starting point for the use of predictive modeling in standardizing pathologist agreement in veterinary pathology. It also highlights the importance of high-quality whole-slide imaging to limit the effect of digitization on inter-pathologist agreement and the benefit of continued standardization of tissue assessment in veterinary pathology.
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 | 0.065 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".