Endometrial cells on Pap tests: ideal reporting is more complex than just finding the right age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The age for reporting normal endometrial cells (EMCs) on Pap tests was changed to ≥ 45 years in the latest Bethesda update (2014). This recommendation is solely based on age with no consensus on optimal reporting guidelines. METHODS: Pap tests with EMCs for women ≥40 years were retrieved from our Laboratory Information System (LIS). Patient age, last menstrual period (LMP) and available follow-up histology were recorded. Follow-up diagnoses were categorized as: no significant pathology, benign, hyperplasia ± atypia, or malignant. The Fisher's exact test was used to assess the association between categorical variables, p < .05 (two-sided test) was considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 352 cases with EMCs, 155 had surgical follow-up. They showed no malignancy in the 89 women between 40-49 years, compared with five malignancies in the 66 women 50+ years (p = .016). The number of cases with significant pathology (hyperplasia and malignant) was 4 (40-49 years) vs. 11 (50+ years) (p = 0.029). The LMP was inconsistently provided (57%) and women identified as postmenopausal on requisition comprised all the malignancies and half the hyperplasias. CONCLUSION: Combined effort by pathologists and clinicians necessitates determining the best standardized clinicopathologic guidelines to report EMCs and appropriate follow-up. Increasing the required age to ≥50 years would provide more optimal patient management; however, there are other considerations beyond age. Reporting EMCs in postmenopausal women is a reasonable alternative requiring consistent and accurate recording of LMP. Improving provided information for pathologists, determining reporting requirements for EMCs and standardizing clinical follow-up should be a multidisciplinary effort. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2017;45:587-591. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".