The value of the “suspicious for urothelial carcinoma” cytology category: A correlative study of 4 years including 337 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The terminology used in reporting urine cytology lacks uniformity and the significance of the "atypical" and "suspicious" categories is still not well established. This results in variable clinical follow-up and management of those cases. The authors sought to investigate the prognostic value of a diagnosis of "suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma" (HGUCA). METHODS: All cases with a "suspicious" or "positive" cytological diagnosis spanning 4 years were included and correlated with the subsequent biopsies obtained within 6 months of urine collection. RESULTS: A total of 447 correlative events (57% positive and 43% suspicious) corresponding to 773 cytology specimens and 337 patients were included. The morphology of the "suspicious" cells was similar to what has recently been reported in the literature as "atypical urothelial cells, cannot exclude HGUCA." A "suspicious" diagnosis was more often rendered than a "positive" one in voided specimens (80% vs 65%, respectively). The mean interval between cytology and biopsy was 31 days. On follow-up, 92% of "suspicious" diagnoses (176 of 191 diagnoses) and 90% of "positive" diagnoses (230 of 256 diagnoses) were found to have a biopsy with a diagnosis of carcinoma (low grade or high grade). A diagnosis of HGUCA followed a "suspicious" and a "positive" diagnosis in 79% and 86% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A "suspicious" diagnosis as defined in the current study warrants close investigations and repeat biopsy to rule out HGUCA. In addition, the findings of the current study raise the question of the need for quantitative criteria for diagnosing HGUCA on cytology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".