MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375955644 · doi:10.1002/pros.24547

Stimulated Raman histology, a novel method to allow for rapid pathologic examination of unprocessed, fresh prostate biopsies

2023· article· en· W4375955644 on OpenAlexaff
Miles P. Mannas, Derek Jones, Fang‐Ming Deng, Deepthi Hoskoppal, Jonathan Melamed, Daniel A. Orringer, Samir S. Taneja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHistologyProstateMedicinePathologyProstate cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Delay between targeted prostate biopsy (PB) and pathologic diagnosis can lead to a concern of inadequate sampling and repeated biopsy. Stimulated Raman histology (SRH) is a novel microscopic technique allowing real-time, label-free, high-resolution microscopic images of unprocessed, unsectioned tissue. This technology holds potential to decrease the time for PB diagnosis from days to minutes. We evaluated the concordance of pathologist interpretation of PB SRH as compared with traditional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides. METHODS: , to create SRH images. The cores were then processed as per normal pathologic protocols. Sixteen PB containing a mix of benign and malignant histology were used as an SRH training cohort for four genitourinary pathologists, who were then tested on a set of 32 PBs imaged by SRH and processed by traditional H&E. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and concordance for prostate cancer (PCa) detection on SRH relative to H&E were assessed. RESULTS: The mean pathologist accuracy for the identification of any PCa on PB SRH was 95.7%. In identifying any PCa or ISUP grade group 2-5 PCa, a pathologist was independently able to achieve good and very good concordance (κ: 0.769 and 0.845, respectively; p < 0.001). After individual assessment was completed a pathology consensus conference was held for the interpretation of the PB SRH; after the consensus conference the pathologists' concordance in identifying any PCa was also very good (κ: 0.925, p < 0.001; sensitivity 95.6%; specificity 100%). CONCLUSION: SRH produces high-quality microscopic images that allow for accurate identification of PCa in real-time without need for sectioning or tissue processing. The pathologist performance improved through progressive training, showing that ultimately high accuracy can be obtained. Ongoing SRH evaluation in the diagnostic and treatment setting hold promise to reduce time to tissue diagnosis, while interpretation by convolutional neural network may further improve diagnostic characteristics and broaden use.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207