MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326157138 · doi:10.1177/0194599815607841

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Posttest Probability of Parotid Fine‐Needle Aspiration

2015· review· en· W2326157138 on OpenAlexaff
C. Carrie Liu, Ashok R. Jethwa, Samir S. Khariwala, Jonas T. Johnson, Jennifer J. Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisMalignancyNomogramIndeterminateCytologyFine-needle aspirationLogistic regressionProspective cohort studyInclusion and exclusion criteriaRadiologySubgroup analysisNuclear medicineInternal medicineBiopsyPathologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: (1) To analyze the sensitivity and specificity of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in distinguishing benign from malignant parotid disease. (2) To determine the anticipated posttest probability of malignancy and probability of nondiagnostic and indeterminate cytology with parotid FNA. DATA SOURCES: Independently corroborated computerized searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed. These were supplemented with manual searches and input from content experts. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion/exclusion criteria specified diagnosis of parotid mass, intervention with both FNA and surgical excision, and enumeration of both cytologic and surgical histopathologic results. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and posttest probability of malignancy. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I(2) statistic. Meta-analysis was performed via a 2-level mixed logistic regression model. Bayesian nomograms were plotted via pooled likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The systematic review yielded 70 criterion-meeting studies, 63 of which contained data that allowed for computation of numerical outcomes (n = 5647 patients; level 2a) and consideration of meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed in studies that were prospective, involved consecutive patients, described the FNA technique utilized, and used ultrasound guidance. The I(2) point estimate was >70% for all analyses, except within prospectively obtained and ultrasound-guided results. Among the prospective subgroup, the pooled analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.882 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.509-0.982) and a specificity of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.960-0.999). The probabilities of nondiagnostic and indeterminate cytology were 0.053 (95% CI, 0.030-0.075) and 0.147 (95% CI, 0.106-0.188), respectively. CONCLUSION: FNA has moderate sensitivity and high specificity in differentiating malignant from benign parotid lesions. Considerable heterogeneity is present among studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.025
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations186
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207