Comparative fine‐needle aspiration and pathologic study of malignant fibrous histiocytoma: Cytodiagnostic features of 95 tumors in 71 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine diagnostic cytomorphologic features of malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) materials, we reviewed the cytologic material and corresponding histologic slides of 95 tumors in 71 patients. Forty-four (46%) tumors were primary, 38 (40%) were recurrent, and 13 (14%) were metastatic. Histological variants of MFH were as follows: 52 (54.7%, 43 patients) were of the storiform/pleomorphic, seven (7.4%, five patients) were giant cells, four (4.2%, four patients) were inflammatory, and 31 (33.7%, 19 patients) were myxoid type. Review of original cytology reports showed that only 23 (24.2%) tumors were diagnosed as MFH and 68 (71.6%) as other types of malignancies. Four (4.2%) cases were reported as unsatisfactory/suspicious. Our findings showed that spindle-shaped, round, giant cells, osteoclastic-like giant, and inflammatory cells were the most consistent features that allow identification of the storiform/pleomorphic, giant cell, and inflammatory variants of MFH. The myxoid tumors had marked myxoid background matrix with spindle-shaped cells and, less frequently, round and giant cells. Pleomorphic leiomyosarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of stroriphorm/pleomorphic, giant cells, and inflammatory variants of MFH. However, myxoid MFH may resemble their leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma counterparts.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".