Predictors of malignancy in thyroid fine‐needle aspirates “cyst fluid only” cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent consensus conference on thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology concluded that specimens with abundant histiocytes and few or no follicular cells should be interpreted as "cyst fluid only," under the category of "nondiagnostic." The purpose of the current study was to identify any cytomorphologic characteristics in this type of specimen that are predictive of an underlying malignancy. METHODS: Thyroid FNA cases with a report of cyst fluid only and a follow-up thyroidectomy specimen were identified during a 3-year period. A blinded retrospective review of 6 morphologic features in the thyroid FNA specimens was conducted. These review findings were then correlated with the histopathologic diagnosis (benign or malignant). RESULTS: Of the 76 cyst fluid only cases with subsequent thyroidectomy, 10 cases had an ipsilateral diagnosis of papillary carcinoma measuring >or=1.0 cm. There was no association found between the number or amount of acute inflammatory cells, blood, colloid, macrophages, and pigmented macrophages and the histologic outcome. In only 4 of the 10 cases with a malignant outcome was the specimen assessed as being truly inadequate on retrospective review, and in 1 of these cases, the cytology was suggestive of malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: The only cytomorphologic characteristic found to be predictive of subsequent malignancy in cyst fluid only cases was the presence of follicular epithelium with atypical or suspicious features. Therefore, cases containing atypical epithelial cells should not be categorized as nondiagnostic or cyst fluid only, but rather diagnosed as atypical or suspicious.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".