Reparative Changes and the False-Positive/False-Negative Papanicolaou Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Reparative changes can be a diagnostic challenge on Papanicolaou tests and must be distinguished from epithelial cell abnormalities. Both squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) and carcinoma may be underdiagnosed as repair. This study examines laboratory and cytologist performance in the diagnosis of repair. OBJECTIVES: To determine if laboratories and cytologists can consistently distinguish reparative changes from SIL and carcinoma and to document how often SIL and carcinoma are mistaken for repair in a standardized educational slide program. DESIGN: Results for reparative changes, SIL, and carcinoma slides from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology for 1998 were analyzed. Only results from validated referenced slide responses were used. RESULTS: The concordancy rate for reparative-change slides, that is, any response of within normal limits or benign cellular changes, ranged from 91% to 94% for cytotechnologist, pathologist, and laboratory responses. False-negative rates for squamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, high-grade SIL, and low-grade SIL ranged from 0.47% to 5.41%; the proportion of false-negative diagnoses of reparative changes ranged from 24% to 62% of all discordant responses. CONCLUSIONS: Of all benign cellular changes and within normal limits categories in the Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology, repair most often elicits a false-positive laboratory response. Underdiagnosing epithelial abnormalities as repair is also a source of false-negative Papanicolaou test results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".