Head‐to‐head: how many categories for grading urothelial carcinoma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumour grade is a critical prognostic parameter for guiding the management of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. In 2004, the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted a binary (low-grade/high-grade) grading system to replace the three-tier (grades 1-3) system used to grade urothelial carcinoma since 1973. However, there is significant global variation in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Some pathology and clinical guidelines recommend reporting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grades in parallel, while others require reporting only of the WHO 2004 grade. This variation in pathology practice is clinically significant, because the two grading systems are not readily translatable. Some experts have proposed novel systems for grading urothelial carcinoma that involve splitting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grade categories. The arguments for and against splitting urothelial carcinomas into two-, three- and four-grade categories are independently discussed by the three authors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".