MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969389654 · doi:10.1002/dc.2052

Outcomes of cytopathology studies presented at national pathology meetings

2001· article· en· W1969389654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marlyn C. Ciesla, Eva M. Wojcik

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Cytopathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytopathologyMedicineClinical OncologyLibrary scienceAnatomical pathologyPathologyMedical physicsFamily medicineCytologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the final publication status of cytopathology studies presented at national meetings. Abstracts involving cytopathology material were obtained from the following journals: Modern Pathology (volume 11, 1998), Acta Cytologica (volume 42, 1998), and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (volumes 109 and 110, 1998). Using the National Library of Medicine Website, each abstract was searched by author and topic to determine if the study was published as a peer-reviewed article. The following parameters were evaluated: meeting where the abstract was presented, type of institution where the research was based, type of material used in the study, and application of ancillary techniques used in the study. The subsequent published articles were evaluated for journal and time to publication. Out of 257 studies presented in 1998, 85 (33%) were published in peer-reviewed journals by May 2000. The majority of papers were published in Diagnostic Cytopathology (n = 21), Acta Cytologica (n = 15), and Cancer (n = 18). The mean time for publication was 12.8 mo. The highest percentage of published studies was presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting (50% of presented abstracts), followed by American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) (28%) and American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) (17%) meetings. Ancillary techniques were applied in 40 of 85 (47%) published studies, 27 of 85 (32%) articles focused on morphology, and 18 of 85 (21%) papers covered other topics (e.g., quality assurance (QA), cost, and role of cytology). In nonpublished studies (n = 172), special techniques were the main focus in 40%, morphology in 25%, and other topics in 35% of abstracts. The great majority (97%) of published studies were from academic institutions. Gynecological and nongynecological material were roughly equally covered in published and nonpublished studies. Only a relatively small percentage of presented studies was finalized in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Type of material and application of ancillary techniques do not significantly influence the outcome.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.418
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.418
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.678
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.129 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic CytopathologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207