Fine‐needle aspiration cytology of mammary fibroadenoma: A comparison of ThinPrep® and cytospin preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammary fibroadenoma (FA) is a lesion frequently sampled and diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Accurate cytologic diagnosis of this common benign lesion is important as this can lead to non-surgical, conservative management when breast imaging and clinical examination are concordant. In most instances, a confident diagnosis of FA is possible because of a characteristic cytologic appearance that includes hypercellularity, large epithelial cell groups, staghorn epithelial configurations, stromal fragments, and numerous background stripped nuclei. Nevertheless, FAs can be diagnostically challenging because of shared cytomorphologic features with other benign lesions and low-grade carcinoma. As such, FA is a well-recognized source of false results on FNA cytology. Furthermore, there are reports that newer thin layer cytopreparatory techniques, including the ThinPrep® (TP) system (Hologic Corp., Bedford, MA), alter the appearance of FA on FNA compared to conventional preparations and may compromise accurate cytologic diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".