Flow-cytometry-enhanced fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the spleen.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Flow cytometry is proving useful in the evaluation of lymphoproliferative disorders. In a case series, the authors investigated the safety of cross-sectional fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the spleen under sonographic guidance, and the usefulness of flow cytometry in analysis of biopsy samples. METHODS: Five patients underwent fine-needle biopsy with freehand sonographic guidance. Samples were analyzed on a flow cytometer. RESULTS: Through cytologic examination enhanced by flow cytometry, 2 cases of lymphoma, 1 case of metastatic transitional cell carcinoma, and 1 case of focal splenic hemangioma were diagnosed. Normal lymphocytes were demonstrated in 1 case, in which long-term follow-up of splenomegaly showed that this was related to cirrhosis and portal hypertension in a patient with a history of treated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. CONCLUSION: Flow-cytometry-enhanced fine-needle aspiration of the spleen is a safe and useful tool for the interventional radiologist. In our institution, it evolved as the result of effective teamwork between diagnostic radiologists and pathologists. Flow cytometry promises to be increasingly useful in the diagnosis and management of lymphoproliferative diseases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".