ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2025
Assessment of interobserver variability in Gleason grading for prostate carcinoma.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The benchmark illusion: on the curious underestimation of AI and the uncertainty of its creators' gold standards.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic discordance in outside prostate biopsies: Implications for active surveillance patient selection.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Deep-learning triage of three-dimensional pathology datasets for comprehensive and efficient pathologist assessments.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in small tissue biopsies: diagnostic applications, histochemical integration, and methodological challenges in surgical pathology.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2026Review
- Automatic Grade Classification in Prostate Histopathological Images Using EfficientNet and Ordinal Focal Loss.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Whole-mount histopathology as spatial ground truth for artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: a structured narrative review of techniques, models, and translational gaps.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in prostate biopsy: diagnostic applications, risk stratification, and precision oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Gleason Score is the most widely used grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma and it is the strongest predictor of the patient's clinical outcome similar to other grading systems, and plays a key role in determining the most effective treatment strategy for the patient. The Gleason scoring system is subject to both intraobserver and interobserver variability. This study aims to assess the interobserver agreement for prostate adenocarcinoma within the Gleason grading system at our center, as well as identify contributing factors.
methodsA total of 119 cases diagnosed with prostatic adenocarcinoma at Giresun Training and Research Hospital were included in the study. Tissue samples from the cases had been subjected to routine laboratory procedures; three-micron sections were obtained from formalin-fixed paraffin blocks and stained H&E. Statistical investigation was conducted on the agreement between Gleason pattern, Gleason sum score, and grade group data among three observers.
resultsIn the evaluation, interobserver agreement was found to be minimal (Gleason pattern k=0.285, total Gleason sum score k=0.309, Grade group k=0.313). The assessment indicated higher agreement in determining low grade compared to high grade, with a decrease in interobserver agreement as the grade increased. Moreover, interobserver agreement demonstrated an increase over the years (p<0.001).
conclusionThe findings underscore the ongoing inadequacy of interobserver agreement in the Gleason scoring system. Improvement suggestions involve conducting studies to ascertain in-clinic interobserver agreement enhancing training, facilitating information sharing, and employing accessible and easily applicable artificial intelligence-supported programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.