Pathologic Reporting of Tall-Cell Variant of Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Have We Reached a Consensus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tall-cell variant (TCV) is widely believed to be a more aggressive subtype of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Despite the significance of TCV with respect to risk stratification and therapeutic decision making, its diagnosis is subject to inter-observer variability. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement among expert pathologists in the identification and reporting of TCV. METHODS: Seventeen surgical resections for thyroid cancer containing the diagnostic term "tall cell" in their pathology reports and 22 cases diagnosed as classical PTC were selected. Cases were digitalized, and 14 expert pathologists reviewed the scanned slides blinded to the original interpretation. Each pathologist designated each case as TCV or not and answered multiple questions about diagnostic histopathologic features of TCV. RESULTS: The overall strength of agreement for identifying TCV was fair (Fleiss kappa 0.34), and the proportion of observed agreement was 0.70. Of 22 cases originally diagnosed as PTC classical variant, 15 (68%) were reclassified as TCV by at least one expert pathologist. It was noted that four different definitions for TCV were used by the participants based on various combinations of cell height to width (H:W) ratio and the percentage of tumor cells showing that specific ratio. All pathologists agreed that the diagnosis of TCV does not rely solely on a specific H:W ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic reporting of TCV varies among pathologists. This disagreement is a result of the lack of unanimous diagnostic criteria and variation in individual pathologists' interpretations. These discrepancies lead to over- and under-diagnosis of TCV, which has significant implications in patient management. It is imperative to understand this variability in diagnosis TCV as it relates to risk stratification and interpretation of clinical studies related to this histologic subtype of PTC. Further studies are needed to reach consensus on the diagnostic criteria of TCV.
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 | 0.149 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".