MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318235703 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e31820273dc

Histologic Artifacts in Abdominal, Vaginal, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Hysterectomy Specimens

2010· article· en· W2318235703 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Krizova, Blaise Clarke, Marcus Q. Bernardini, Sarah James, Steve E. Kalloger, Scott Boerner, Anna Marie Mulligan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHysterectomyLaparoscopyLaparotomyAdenomyosisSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyEndometriosisGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) is a minimally invasive technique, which results in comparable morbidity and better cosmesis compared with total abdominal hysterectomy. The literature is discrepant as to whether it is associated with a higher incidence of positive peritoneal cytology compared with total abdominal hysterectomy and recently, associated artifacts, including vascular pseudoinvasion (VPI), have been described. A retrospective histopathologic review of 266 hysterectomy specimens from 2 centers was performed. The observers, blinded to the surgical technique, assessed for the presence of artifactual changes including disruption of the endometrial lining, nuclear crush artifact, VPI, endomyometrial cleft artifact with or without epithelial displacement, inflammatory debris within vessels, serosal carryover, and intratubal contaminants. In addition, the rates of positive peritoneal washings over a 5-year period, and the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) to aid in cell typing over a 3-year period, were compared between hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator (UM) device had and had not (nonmanipulated hysterectomies) been used. The hysterectomies were performed for malignant (n=160) and benign (n=102) uterine disease or for ovarian or cervical disease (n=4), and included total abdominal (n=108), vaginal (n=17), laparoscopy-assisted vaginal (n=24), laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (n=10), nonrobotic laparoscopic (n=51), and robot-assisted laparoscopic (n=56) hysterectomies. One hundred and two (38%) of these hysterectomies involved the use of a UM. Artifactual changes of disruption of the endometrial lining, endomyometrial clefts, intratubal contaminants, nuclear crush artifact, intravascular inflammatory debris, and VPI were significantly more common with LH and with the use of a UM, independent of whether the endometrial pathology was benign or malignant. IHC to aid in endometrial cancer subtyping was more likely to be used in manipulated hysterectomies (P=0.0166). Furthermore, peritoneal washings were significantly more likely to be positive in hysterectomies in which a UM had been used (P=0.0061). Histologic artifacts are significantly more common in LH and specifically in hysterectomies in which a UM is used. Such artifacts impair the pathologists' interpretation of cell type requiring an increased use of IHC, and displaced epithelial fragments present within vessels or artifactual clefts may result in the misinterpretation of prognostic and staging parameters. Furthermore, there is a significantly higher rate of positive peritoneal cytology in cases that are subjected to uterine manipulation, suggesting dissemination of malignant cells into the abdominal cavity. The clinical significance of this finding needs to be determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207