A Preclinical Evaluation Comparing the Performance of a Novel 19-G Flexible Needle to a Commercially Available 22-G EBUS-TBNA Sampling Needle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Needle samples may not provide sufficient diagnostic material for the assessment of mediastinal lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: The study compared the specimen size and diagnostic performance of a new 19-G endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) needle to that of a standard 22-G EBUS-TBNA needle in a swine model of granulomatous lymphadenopathy. METHODS: Granulomatous inflammation was induced in mediastinal lymph nodes (LNs) of 10 domestic swine by injection of talc slurry. The affected LNs were sampled with the 19- and 22-G needles. Collected core tissue area and volume were determined using a specialized software and known needle internal diameter. The sample's quality was assessed using the biopsy core morphology grade (BCMG) as well as the biopsy diagnostic correlation grade (BDCG). RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the average LN size from baseline (11.6 ± 3.2 to 15.2 ± 3.8 mm; p < 0.001) after talc injection. A total of 132 paired samples were collected from 38 LNs. The average mass and volume of the 19-G needle sample were larger than those of the 22-G needle sample: 33.78 ± 47.48 vs. 25.18 ± 32.08 mg (p < 0.002) and 11.40 ± 13.91 vs. 6.91 ± 6.42 mm3 (p < 0.0004), respectively. The pooled needle biopsy samples for the 19- and the 22-G needles had similar BCMG (1.38 ± 0.86 vs. 1.43 ± 0.87, p > 0.2) and BDCG (1.54 ± 0.93 vs. 1.57 ± 0.93, p > 0.2). The 19-G needle samples tended towards less blood contamination (p = 0.057), more often granuloma identification (46 vs. 32%, p = 0.2) and had more cartilage contamination (0.49 ± 1.46 vs. 4.81 ± 16.49% p < 0.003). CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, the 19- and the 22-G EBUS-TBNA needles have a similar diagnostic yield in the swine model of granulomatous lymphadenopathy. The samples collected by the 19-G needle are larger and may have less blood contamination.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".