MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904394183 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000569

Performance Characteristics of Endometrial Sampling in Diagnosis of Endometrial Carcinoma

2018· article· en· W2904394183 on OpenAlexaff
Catalin Taraboanta, Heidi Britton, Anna Plotkin, Nazila Azordegan, Philip B. Clement, C. Blake Gilks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtypiaMedicineEndometrial hyperplasiaBiopsyHysterectomyEndometrial biopsyCarcinomaSampling (signal processing)GynecologyAtypical hyperplasiaRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outpatient endometrial biopsy can give false-negative results, with a 0.9% reported posttest probability for endometrial carcinoma (EC) after a negative result. Our objective was to determine if there has been any improvement in the performance characteristics of endometrial biopsy over the last 15 yr. All hysterectomy specimens with a diagnosis of EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH), reported between May 2011 and May 2015, were identified and cross-referenced for any negative endometrial sampling results during the 5 yr before hysterectomy. Negative endometrial samples were defined as either benign findings or insufficient/nondiagnostic, excluding those diagnosed as AH or EC and those for which follow-up sampling was recommended because of atypia. Of 1677 hysterectomy specimens showing AH or EC there were previous negative biopsies in 172: 116 benign and 56 insufficient/nondiagnostic. Over the same period 22,875 negative endometrial biopsy specimens were reported in our region. The posttest probability of having EC or AH in the hysterectomy specimen, given a negative endometrial biopsy result, was 0.74%. In a subset of 90 cases in which a negative biopsy was followed by a diagnosis of AH or EC in a hysterectomy specimen, the slides were independently reviewed. There were no cases where a diagnosis of carcinoma was missed. In 12 samples atypia or possible atypia was identified, and the level of agreement with the original diagnosis was excellent κ=0.83±0.05. In a prospective comparison of examination of 3 levels from each block versus a single slide in 319 cases, the routine preparation of additional slides did not yield clinically significant information. Although there has been evolution in the diagnostic criteria for AH and for recognition of morphologically subtle forms of AH or EC, our results demonstrate a significant lack of sensitivity of outpatient endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of endometrial malignancy/premalignancy. The sensitivity problems are mainly attributable to failure to sample abnormal endometrium. Independent review of slides or examination of additional levels did little to increase the diagnostic yield.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207