Dataset for reporting of the invasive carcinoma of the breast: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current national or regional guidelines for the pathology reporting on invasive breast cancer differ in certain aspects, resulting in divergent reporting practice and a lack of comparability of data. Here we report on a new international dataset for the pathology reporting of resection specimens with invasive cancer of the breast. The dataset was produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter-)national pathology and cancer organizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The established ICCR process for dataset development was followed. An international expert panel consisting of breast pathologists, a surgeon, and an oncologist prepared a draft set of core and noncore data items based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the document was finalized and ratified, and the dataset, which includes a synoptic reporting guide, was published on the ICCR website. CONCLUSIONS: This first international dataset for invasive cancer of the breast is intended to promote high-quality, standardized pathology reporting. Its widespread adoption will improve consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve the management of invasive breast cancer patients.
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 | 0.506 | 0.599 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".