MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Efficacy of Using the Tissue Fragments Present in Cervical Scrapes for the Histologic Diagnosis of Cervical Neoplasia

2013· article· en· W2044430235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathilde E. Boon, Pio Zeppa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVialPathologyHistologyCytologyMedicineCytopathologyBrushEpithelial tissueEpitheliumChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical scrapes to diagnose cervical neoplasia, collected by the clinician with brushes, are sent to the Leiden Cytology and Pathology Laboratory (LCPL) in vials containing BoonFix, a noncross-linking coagulant fixative. Because the residual material left in the vials contains tissue fragments with important diagnostic information, we stored the residual material in our archives. The tissue fragments can be mummified and archived in commercially available histology cassettes. We can produce paraffin sections thereof. Immunostaining is beautiful on serial paraffin sections cut from these blocks. We experienced that it is important to leave the brush in the vial such that all tissue fragments can be used for histologic diagnosis. In order to optimize the system, tissue fragments left in the endocervical part of the brush are removed in a paint shaker. We illustrate this principle of recovering mummified tissue fragments in a false negative case with cytology containing many undiagnosable collapsed tissue fragments. This case shows clearly the efficacy of using the tissue fragments present in cervical scrapes for the histologic diagnosis of cervical neoplasia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207