Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: amplification. Methods: gene status between manual, computer-assisted, and GT gene status were determined. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) rates for image analysis (IA) vs GT were 97.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95.0, 99.3) and 94.3% (95% CI: 90.8, 97.3) respectively. Comparison of agreement rates showed that the lower bounds of the 95% CIs for the difference of PPA and NPA for IA vs MR were -0.9% and -6.2%, respectively. Further, inter- and intra-reader agreement rates in the IA method were observed with point estimates of at least 96.7%. Conclusions: Overall, our data show that the uPath HER2 DISH IA is non-inferior to manual scoring and supports its use as an aid for pathologists in routine diagnosis of breast cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoder et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: