Small core needle biopsies in cytology practice: a survey of members of the American Society of Cytopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The introduction of a new generation of core needle biopsies (CNBs) for endoscopic procedures has prompted reconsideration of the role of cytopathologists in the handling of small biopsies. The American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) has therefore conducted a survey with the intention of elucidating current practices regarding the handling of small CNBs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The membership of the ASC was invited by email to participate in an online survey over a 2-month period. The survey consisted of 20 multiple choice questions with 2-8 possible responses per question. RESULTS: Of 2651 members contacted by e-mail, 282 (10.6%) responded to the survey questions, including 196 pathologists (69.5%) and 86 cytotechnologists (30.5%). Of these, 265 respondents were from the US/Canada (94.0%), with 156 from academic institutions (58.9%) and 109 from non-academic practices (41.1%); 17 were from other countries (6.0%). In 18.8% of all practices, cytopathologists sign out >90% of small CNBs from endoscopic and radiologically guided procedures; in 36.5% of practices >90% are signed out by surgical pathologists; the remainder have such cases divided more evenly between cytopathologists and surgical pathologists. Responses show that 78.0% of all respondents are interested in signing out more small biopsies in the future, and 80.5% desire increased small biopsy-related resources from the ASC. CONCLUSIONS: The survey responses indicate that practices currently vary widely across institutions. Most indicated an interest in greater incorporation of small biopsies into the practice of cytopathology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".