Typing less common ovarian tumors: A training tool based on a pattern-based algorithm applied to a set of 20 virtual slides.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Ovarian tumors (OT) typing is a competency expected from pathologists, with significant clinical implications. OT however come in numerous different types, some rather rare, with the consequence of few opportunities for practice in some departments. Aim: Our aim was to design a tool for pathologists to train in less common OT typing. Method and Results: Representative slides of 20 less common OT were scanned (Nano Zoomer Digital Hamamatsu®) and the diagnostic algorithm proposed by Young and Scully applied to each case (Young RH and Scully RE, Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 2001, 18: 161-235) to include: recognition of morphological pattern(s); shortlisting of differential diagnosis; proposition of relevant immunohistochemical markers. The next steps of this project will be: evaluation of the tool in several post-graduate training centers in Europe and Québec; improvement of its design based on evaluation results; diffusion to a larger public. Discussion: In clinical medicine, solving many cases is recognized as of utmost importance for a novice to become an expert. This project relies on the virtual slides technology to provide pathologists with a learning tool aimed at increasing their skills in OT typing. After due evaluation, this model might be extended to other uncommon tumors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".