MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962460699 · doi:10.1002/hed.24193

Institution‐specific risk of papillary thyroid carcinoma in atypia/follicular lesion of undetermined significance

2015· article· en· W1962460699 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Bernstein, Manish D. Shah, Christina MacMillan, Jeremy L. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtypiaPapillary carcinomaMedicineThyroid carcinomaFollicular carcinomaPathologyCarcinomaLesionFollicular phaseOncologyThyroidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) is used in surgical decision-making according to malignancy risk in each category. Malignancy risk in atypia/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) is estimated in BSRTC to be 5% to 15%, but institutional data have varied widely. METHODS: We conducted a post-BSRTC 4-year retrospective analysis of index thyroid nodule cytology and histopathology in an academic head and neck endocrine surgery setting. RESULTS: Of 2939 thyroid cytology reports from 1944 patients, the most advanced BSRTC category was AUS/FLUS in 233 patients (12.0%) of which 187 went to thyroidectomy. In AUS/FLUS, the upper and lower boundary estimates of the malignancy rate were 46% and 37%, accordingly. The malignancy rate did not vary significantly by cytopathologist or cytopathologic features. CONCLUSION: Malignancy rates in AUS/FLUS vary by institution from 6% to 46%. Given the subjective nature of thyroid cytopathology and interpretation of the BSRTC categories, guidelines should encourage the use of institution-specific data on malignancy risk in treatment decisions. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1210-E1215, 2016.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207