Exploring avenues for best use of cytotechnologists in non‐gynaecological cytology: Double screening or independent sign‐out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cytotechnologist (CT) screening workload has been decreasing due to the falling number of Papanicolaou tests. This continuing trend has prompted exploration of ways to best employ the CT skillset. One potential way of more effective use is by having two CTs double screen non-gynaecological (NGC) cases to assess whether this improves screening quality and concordance with pathologists. Another is evaluating the CT's performance on low-complexity negative NGC cases for a potential independent CT sign-out without pathologist review. METHODS: In total, 1119 NGC cases were reviewed; 577 screened by two CTs and 542 screened by one CT. All cases were signed out by a pathologist and all CT interpretations were compared to the pathologist final diagnoses. The disagreements were classified based on degree of discrepancy. The extra workload by adding the second screener was assessed. RESULTS: The agreement rate between the CT's screening interpretation and pathologist's interpretation did not improve by adding a second CT compared to a single screener (91.5% vs 92.9%, respectively). CT to pathologist concordance was very high on low complexity NGC cases (voided urine, fluid, sputum) whether screened and interpreted as negative by one CT (97.3%) or two CTs (99.3%). CONCLUSION: Double screening of NGC cases by two cytotechnologists prior to pathologist sign-out does not improve screening quality and is not cost-effective. The high concordance between the CTs and pathologists in this limited group of low complexity negative cases suggests that such cases could be signed out independently by cytotechnologists.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".