Two-tier architecture-based grading for pancreatic cancer outperforms traditional grading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A novel architecture-based grading system for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is tested against traditional grading. METHODS: A total of 103 PDAC resections were graded by College of American Pathologists/American Joint Committee on Cancer (CAP/AJCC) guidelines and by a system using an architectural pattern (dispersed larger duct = low grade vs dense smaller duct = high grade). Survival analyses and interobserver variability were assessed. In total, 114 cases from a public data set were used for validation. RESULTS: Median overall survivals were 15 and 36 months for architectural high-grade and low-grade cases, respectively (P < .001). Conversely, CAP/AJCC grading showed no survival difference between well-differentiated and moderately differentiated tumors (P = .545). Architecture-based grading remained prognostically significant for recurrence-free survival (P = .004), but CAP/AJCC grading was not (P = .226). Adjusted for stage and margin status, architectural high-grade PDACs showed a hazard ratio of 2.69 relative to low grade (P < .001) for survival. The validation cohort confirmed prognostic differences in overall (P < .001) and recurrence-free survival (P = .027) for the architecture-based system, outperforming CAP/AJCC grading. Architecture-based grading exhibited a Cohen's ĸ value of 0.710 (substantial agreement), superior to traditional grading (0.488, moderate agreement). CONCLUSIONS: Grading PDAC based on architectural pattern results in superior prognostication and reproducibility vs CAP/AJCC grading.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".