Diagnostic Yield of EBUS-TBNA for the Evaluation of Centrally Located Peribronchial Pulmonary Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound with real-time-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), endobronchial forceps biopsy (EBBx), and 2D fluoroscopic-guided transbronchial forceps biopsy (TBLBx) for centrally located peribronchial lung lesions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA of centrally located peribronchial lesions, that is, medial margin of the mass within inner third of hemithorax by computerized tomography scan. Patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA for lymph node sampling were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty-two cases met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69±12 years. Sixteen (50%) were male patients. Of the 32 EBUS-TBNA cases, 13 underwent concomitant TBLBx (group 1), 8 had concomitant EBBx (group 2), and 11 had EBUS-TBNA alone (group 3). In group 1, the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA was 95% (n=12/13), whereas the yield of TBLBx was 61% (n=8/13). In group 2, the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA was 100% (n=8/8), whereas EBBx was positive in 75% (n=6/8). In group 3, the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA was 91% (n=10/11). Overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA of centrally located peribronchial lung lesions was 94% (n=30/32). CONCLUSION: Where available, EBUS-TBNA of centrally located peribronchial lung lesions should be given a strong consideration given its high diagnostic yield.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".