A Multicenter Study Validates the WHO 2022 Classification for Conjunctival Melanocytic Intraepithelial Lesions With Clinical and Prognostic Relevance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several nomenclature and grading systems have been proposed for conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesions (C-MIL). The fourth "WHO Classification of Eye Tumors" (WHO-EYE04) proposed a C-MIL classification, capturing the progression of noninvasive neoplastic melanocytes from low- to high-grade lesions, onto melanoma in situ (MIS), and then to invasive melanoma. This proposal was revised to the WHO-EYE05 C-MIL system, which simplified the high-grade C-MIL, whereby MIS was subsumed into high-grade C-MIL. Our aim was to validate the WHO-EYE05 C-MIL system using digitized images of C-MIL, stained with hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry. However, C-MIL cases were retrieved from 3 supraregional ocular pathology centers. Adequate conjunctival biopsies were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Melan-A, SOX10, and PReferentially expressed Antigen in Melanoma. Digitized slides were uploaded on the SmartZoom platform and independently scored by 4 ocular pathologists to obtain a consensus score, before circulating to 14 expert eye pathologists for independent scoring. In total, 105 cases from 97 patients were evaluated. The initial consensus diagnoses using the WHO-EYE04 C-MIL system were as follows: 28 benign conjunctival melanoses, 13 low-grade C-MIL, 37 high-grade C-MIL, and 27 conjunctival MIS. Using this system resulted in 93% of the pathologists showing only fair-to-moderate agreement (kappa statistic) with the consensus score. The WHO-EYE05 C-MIL system (with high-grade C-MIL and MIS combined) improved consistency between pathologists, with the greatest level of agreement being seen with benign melanosis (74.5%) and high-grade C-MIL (85.4%). Lowest agreements remained between pathologists for low-grade C-MIL (38.7%). Regarding WHO-EYE05 C-MIL scoring and clinical outcomes, local recurrences of noninvasive lesions developed in 8% and 34% of the low- and high-grade cases. Invasive melanoma only occurred in 47% of the cases that were assessed as high-grade C-MIL. This extensive international collaborative study is the first to undertake a comprehensive review of the WHO-EYE05 C-MIL scoring system, which showed good interobserver agreement and reproducibility.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it