Diminishing diagnosis of follicular thyroid carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Follicular carcinomas have been reported as 10% to 15% of thyroid malignancies. Refinements in the histologic criteria applied in the classification of follicular lesions have occurred. We aim to document the true incidence of follicular cancers in a cohort from a high-volume endocrine practice. METHODS: Patient charts were reviewed and cancers were classified into major subtypes; papillary cancers were further classified by common variants. Proportions were compared to historic Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database proportions. RESULTS: Only 2.7% of patients had follicular carcinoma. The proportion of patients with follicular cancer was less than the reported rates of 10% to 15%, and less than the 6.7% extrapolated from SEER. CONCLUSION: The proportion of follicular cancers is less than traditionally reported. This change is due to an increased incidence of papillary cancers, and modifications of the histologic criteria used for classification of encapsulated follicular lesions. There are potential prognostic consequences, as follicular cancers have been perceived as more aggressive.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".