Should Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy Be the Preferred Diagnostic Modality for Isolated Abdominal Lymphadenopathy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy is frequently detected, but often challenging to diagnose. To obtain a tissue diagnosis, percutaneous biopsy (pb) or laparoscopic biopsy (lb) is often undertaken. The safety profiles and diagnostic accuracy of pb and lb within the abdomen are both poorly defined. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we identified all patients who underwent lb or pb for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy at our institute during 2008-2016. Results: Of 62 patients who underwent nodal biopsy for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy, 33 underwent lb and 29 underwent pb. For the 33 patients who underwent lb, the procedure was diagnostic in 100% of cases; for the 29 who underwent pb, the procedure was diagnostic in 18 cases (62.1%). Both procedures were safe, with similar complication rates (6.0% for lb; 7.0% for pb). Conclusions: Our results establish that lb and pb are both safe and reliable in the setting of isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy. We also demonstrate that each procedure has situational advantages. A pb should be considered to be the upfront diagnostic modality, particularly when anatomic or disease factors favour its success. In situations in which it is felt that pb cannot safely access the lymphadenopathy or in disease states in which the yield of a core biopsy will be insufficient, lb should be strongly considered. Examples include extra-retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and cases of suspected lymphoma.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".