Inverted urothelial papilloma: A review of diagnostic pitfalls and clinical management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverted urothelial papilloma (IUP) is a rare, non-invasive endophytic lesion that accounts for 1-2% of urothelial tumours. On cystoscopy, IUP appears as a pedunculated/papillary mass with a smooth surface. On microscopy, IUP has an endophytic growth pattern with the bulk of the tumour covered by a superficial layer of urothelium, which can be hyperplastic or attenuated. The cytology should be bland, with uniform, spindled cells arranged in anastomosing trabeculae and cords with peripheral palisading of basaloid cells. Exophytic papillae and mitotic activity should be absent or focal. Pseudoglandular spaces and squamous metaplasia may also be present. There are distinct molecular differences between IUP and urothelial carcinoma (UC). IUP rarely has mutations of FGFR3, homozygous loss of 9p21, or gain of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17, whereas these mutations are frequently seen in UC. In addition, IUP is much less likely to have TERT mutations compared to UC. Immunohistochemistry can also be helpful in distinguishing the two entities as IUP is typically negative for CK20 and has a low Ki-67 proliferation index. Positivity for p53 may be seen in a minority of IUP. IUP can recur and be seen in association with UC. Distinguishing IUP from UC can be difficult due to the similarity between the two entities both on cystoscopy and histology, as up to 25% of UCs will also have inverted growth. Given the morphologic variants of IUP and UC, it is possible for a diagnostic error to occur, which can significantly impact patient management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".