Cytology and outcome of LSIL: cannot exclude HSIL compared to ASC‐H
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The cytological features associated with clinical outcome of 'LSIL cannot exclude HSIL (LSIL-H)' in comparison with 'atypical squamous cells cannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H)' are incompletely described. METHODS: LSIL-H and ASC-H Pap tests reported in a regional laboratory during a 13-month period were reviewed by two pathologists. Cytological features suspicious for HSIL were evaluated against a check list of 52 atypical features. All histology over 2 years of follow up for tests reclassified as LSIL-H and ASC-H was retrieved to determine clinical outcome. Atypical cytological features were correlated with outcome. RESULTS: The review yielded 89 LSIL-H and 86 ASC-H. The highest ranked atypical cytological feature in each group was increased nuclear cytoplasmic ratio. Clinical outcome was positive (CIN II/III or AIS) in 44 (49%) LSIL-H and 33 (38%) ASC-H. Round (P = 0.02) and naked nuclei (P = 0.009) were significant correlates of outcome amongst LSIL-H tests, but no feature correlated with outcome in the ASC-H group. CONCLUSIONS: LSIL-H is different to ASC-H because of the 11% higher frequency of a positive outcome and the cytological features associated with 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".