The Use of Routine Special Stains for Upper Gastrointestinal Biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helicobacter pylori and intestinal metaplasia (IM) are readily seen in hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of gastric and/or esophageal biopsies, yet many pathology laboratories perform routine special stains on all of these biopsies. We wished to determine if special stains are necessary for every single gastric and/or esophageal biopsy. We prospectively studied 613 gastric and/or esophageal biopsies from 494 consecutive patients. The slides were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, toluidine blue (TB) for H. pylori, and Alcian blue (AB) for IM. The hematoxylin and eosin slide was classed as positive or negative for H. pylori and IM. Then it was determined if the case needed a TB or AB stain. A total of 436 cases (71.1%) were identified as H. pylori-negative and not needing a TB stain, and none was TB+. A total of 126 (20.6%) of hematoxylin and eosin slides were inconclusive for H. pylori and were regarded as needing a TB stain. Twenty of these (15.9%) were TB+. Fifty-one biopsies (8.3%) were regarded as H. pylori+ on hematoxylin and eosin; the TB stain was also positive in 49. IM was present in 113 (18.4%) hematoxylin and eosin biopsies. Hematoxylin and eosin slides were IM-negative in 498 cases (81.2%). The AB stain revealed rare goblet cells in 3 of 498 cases (0.6%). Only one of those biopsies was esophageal, and that had one goblet cell that was missed on hematoxylin and eosin. Only 2 (0.3%) were regarded as needing an AB stain. We conclude that routine special stains for all gastric and/or esophageal biopsies are not required, and hematoxylin and eosin assessment combined with selective ordering of these stains will identify virtually all cases of H. pylori gastritis and intestinal metaplasia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".