Familial Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Whether or not the familial form of papillary thyroid carcinoma is more aggressive than the sporadic form of the disease remains controversial. Methods. To explore this question and whether or not increased aggressiveness is more apparent in families with multiple affected members, we performed a chi square by trend analysis on our patients clinical and pathologic data comparing: first degree families with three or more affected members versus first degree families with two affected members versus sporadic cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Results. No statistically significant trends were seen for any presenting surgical pathology parameter, age at presentation, length of follow-up or gender distribution. The familial groups exhibited significant trends for higher rates of reoperation (P = 0.05) and/or requiring additional radioactive iodine therapy (P = 0.03), distant metastases (P = 0.003) and deaths (P = 0.01). These aggressive features were most apparent in certain families with three or more affected members. Conclusions. Using the chi square by trend analysis, a significant trend was seen for the familial form of papillary thyroid cancer to possess more aggressive features than the sporadic disease. Prompt recognition of the familial nature of the disease may provide earlier diagnosis and treatment in similarly affected family members.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".