MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550169856 · doi:10.1002/dc.23118

Atypical squamous cells in the urine revealing endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium with squamous cell differentiation: A case report

2014· article· en· W1550169856 on OpenAlexaff
Yinong Wang, Christopher N. Otis, Roxanne R. Florence

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Cytopathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary and Genital Oncology Studies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrotheliumSquamous metaplasiaMedicinePathologyUrine cytologyCytopathologyUrineSquamous intraepithelial lesionUrinary bladderSquamous carcinomaMalignancyAdenocarcinomaUrologyCytologyCarcinomaInternal medicineCystoscopyCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaCancerEpitheliumCervical cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urine cytology is mainly used to detect urothelial carcinoma (UC), especially for high-grade lesions including urothelial carcinoma in situ. Benign squamous cells are often seen in the urine specimens of women, they are either exfoliated from the trigone area of the bladder, the urethra, or the cervicovaginal region. However, abnormal squamous cells in the urine raise concerns of abnormalities of the urinary tract and cervicovaginal area which range from squamous metaplasia of the urothelium, a cervicovaginal squamous intraepithelial lesion, condyloma acuminatum of the bladder, UC with squamous differentiation, and squamous cell carcinoma. We present here a unique case of atypical squamous cells (ASCs) in the urine subsequently leading to the diagnosis of endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium with squamous differentiation. The presence of ASCs in voided urine is a rare finding that may indicate an underlying malignancy. Careful evaluation of squamous cells in the urine is an important part of our daily cytopathology practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic CytopathologySame topicUrinary and Genital Oncology StudiesFrench-language works237,207