The Impact of Next‐Generation Sequencing on Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Accuracy of Deep Penetrating Melanocytic Neoplasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming more commonly used for diagnosis in dermatopathology. It's critical to appraise its efficacy and limitations. Distinguishing benign deep penetrating nevi (DPN) from deep penetrating like-melanoma (DPN-M) is a challenging diagnostic scenario even for experienced dermatopathologists. METHODS: We sent a two-phase survey (pre-and postgenomics) to 32 experienced dermatopathologists to evaluate 39 diagnostically challenging cases from the DPN/WNT-activated family of melanocytic neoplasms. RESULTS: With NGS data, interobserver agreement improved from 0.41 to 0.51 (p < 0.0001) in distinguishing DPN-M from nonmelanoma cases. Overall diagnostic accuracy improved, mostly driven by a 16% increase in accurate diagnosis of DPN-M. However, in two cases, the inclusion of genomics shifted the majority vote from a correct to an incorrect diagnosis. A total of 218 diagnostic changes occurred between Survey 1 and 2. Among the changes, 132 votes moved toward the correct diagnosis while 86 moved toward an incorrect diagnosis. The shift in voting which resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy was statistically significant (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: NGS has the potential to improve interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy. We provide guidance on the utilization of bioinformatic data to maximize its benefits and improve diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".