MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032201139 · doi:10.1159/000506497

A Proposal for the Performance, Classification, and Reporting of Lymph Node Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytopathology: The Sydney System

2020· article· en· W3032201139 on OpenAlexaff
Mousa A. Al‐Abbadi, Helena Barroca, Beata Bode‐Lesniewska, Maria Calaminici, Nancy P. Caraway, David Chhieng, Immacolata Cozzolino, Mats Ehinger, Andrew Field, William R. Geddie, Ruth L. Katz, Oscar Lin, L. Jeffrey Medeiros, Sara E. Monaco, Arvind Rajwanshi, Fernando Schmitt, Philippe Vielh, Pio Zeppa

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Cytologica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer and biochemical research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCytopathologyFine needle aspiration cytologyFine-needle aspirationLymph nodeMedical physicsRadiologyCytologyBiopsyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of lymph nodes (LN) by fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is routinely used in many institutions but it is not uniformly accepted mainly because of the lack of guidelines and a cytopathological diagnostic classification. A committee of cytopathologists has developed a system of performance, classification, and reporting for LN-FNAC. METHODS: The committee members prepared a document that has circulated among them five times; the final text has been approved by all the participants. It is based on a review of the international literature and on the expertise of the members. The system integrates clinical and imaging data with cytopathological features and ancillary techniques. The project has received the endorsement and patronage of the International Academy of Cytology and the European Federation of the Cytology Societies. RESULTS: Clinical, imaging, and serological data of lymphadenopathies, indications for LN-FNAC, technical procedures, and ancillary techniques are evaluated with specific recommendations. The reporting system includes two diagnostic levels. The first should provide basic diagnostic information and includes five categories: inadequate/insufficient, benign, atypical lymphoid cells of undetermined/uncertain significance, suspicious, and malignant. For each category, specific recommendations are provided. The second diagnostic level, when achievable, should produce the identification of specific benign or malignant entities and additional information by utilizing ancillary testing. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that the introduction of this system for performing and reporting LN-FNAC may improve the quality of the procedure, the report, and the communication between cytopathologists and the clinicians. This system may lead to a greater acceptance and utilization of LN-FNAC and to a better interdisciplinary understanding of the results of this procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations125
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa CytologicaSame topicCancer and biochemical researchFrench-language works237,207