Urothelial carcinoma in situ with “early papillary formation” vs “lateral spread/shoulder lesion” of prior high-grade noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma: A survey of pathologist and urologist interpretations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Urothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS) with early papillary formation is terminology sometimes used to suggest incipient high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (PUC) but may lead to confusion between true CIS and lateral flat spread of PUC. METHODS: It remains unclear how pathologists and urologists interpret this scenario, so a survey was circulated to 68 pathologists (group 1 = 28 academic genitourinary pathologists; group 2 = 17 pathologists with a self-reported genitourinary focus; group 3 = 23 pathologists self-reported as not genitourinary specialists) and 32 urologists. RESULTS: Regarding atypical urothelial lesions that appear mainly flat but contain possible papillae, group 3 was more likely to label this as CIS compared with groups 1 and 2 (35% for group 3 vs 13% for groups 1 and 2), while groups 1 and 2 more often adopted another descriptive diagnosis, such as "CIS with early papillary features" (38% for groups 1 and 2 vs 13% for group 3). Among all 3 groups, group 1 was most likely to diagnose concomitant CIS and PUC in the same specimen but in different tissue fragments (58%). Pagetoid spread was reported to favor CIS predominantly by group 1 (61%). Urologists felt that the term lateral spread/shoulder was unclear (75%) and preferred early PUC (44%) or PUC with early growth (44%). Half (53%) of urologists felt that reporting CIS instead of lateral spread of PUC would change management. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of flat lesions lacks consensus among pathologists and may benefit from standardized terminology. Moreover, the distinction between CIS and early or lateral spread of PUC is not always clear to urologists and can influence disease management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".