MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388290576 · doi:10.1016/j.labinv.2023.100281

A Multicenter Study Validates the WHO 2022 Classification for Conjunctival Melanocytic Intraepithelial Lesions With Clinical and Prognostic Relevance

2023· review· en· W4388290576 on OpenAlexaff
Hardeep Singh Mudhar, Yamini Krishna, Simon S. Cross, Claudia Auw‐Haedrich, Raymond L. Barnhill, Svetlana Cherepanoff, Ralph C. Eagle, James Farmer, Robert Folberg, Hans E. Grossniklaus, Martina C. Herwig‐Carl, Martin Hyrcza, Sandra Lassalle, Karin U. Loeffler, Alexandre Moulin, Tatyana Milman, Robert M. Verdijk, Steffen Heegaard, Sarah E. Coupland

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Investigation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Eye InstituteLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)MelanomaH&E stainPathologyBreslow ThicknessConjunctivaScoring systemPagetoidMelanosisIntraepithelial neoplasiaOphthalmic pathologyDermatologyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineOphthalmologyCancerNeuro-ophthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory InvestigationSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207