Interobserver reproducibility of cribriform cancer in prostate needle biopsies and validation of International Society of Urological Pathology criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is strong evidence that cribriform morphology indicates a worse prognosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Our aim was to investigate its interobserver reproducibility in prostate needle biopsies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A panel of nine prostate pathology experts from five continents independently reviewed 304 digitised biopsies for cribriform cancer according to recent International Society of Urological Pathology criteria. The biopsies were collected from a series of 702 biopsies that were reviewed by one of the panellists for enrichment of high-grade cancer and potentially cribriform structures. A 2/3 consensus diagnosis of cribriform and noncribriform cancer was reached in 90% (272/304) of the biopsies with a mean kappa value of 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.61). The prevalence of consensus cribriform cancers was estimated to 4%, 12%, 21%, and 20% of Gleason scores 7 (3 + 4), 7 (4 + 3), 8, and 9-10, respectively. More than two cribriform structures per level or a largest cribriform mass with ≥9 lumina or a diameter of ≥0.5 mm predicted a consensus diagnosis of cribriform cancer in 88% (70/80), 84% (87/103), and 90% (56/62), respectively, and noncribriform cancer in 3% (2/80), 5% (5/103), and 2% (1/62), respectively (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Cribriform prostate cancer was seen in a minority of needle biopsies with high-grade cancer. Stringent diagnostic criteria enabled the identification of cribriform patterns and the generation of a large set of consensus cases for standardisation.
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 | 0.052 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".