Diagnostic validity of fine-needle capillary cytology in palpable tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of fine-needle capillary cytology (FNCC) in palpable tumours. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, single-tray, cross-sectional diagnostic test study was carried out. We reviewed the cytological reports of the case files of the Cytology Unit of the Northern Regional Institute of Neoplastic Diseases (IREN) from January 2012 to December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were selected, with an average age of 54.77 years (range 13-90 years); 61.4% of patients were female. The most frequent anatomical sites were lymph nodes (49.7%), thyroid (13.3%), breast (12.3%) and soft tissues (11.4%). Twenty-five cytologies did not have a histological correlation and six showed an atypical result. In the lymph node study, the most frequent pathology was metastatic carcinoma (49.7%), followed by lymphoma (13.3%). The FNCC had a sensitivity of 99.55%, a specificity of 98.77%, a positive predictive value of 99.55% and a negative predictive value of 98.77%. The positive likelihood ratio was 80.63%. CONCLUSIONS: FNCC is a useful, safe, reliable and economical ambulatory technique with minimal complications and high diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".