Conditions associated with the need for additional needle passes in ultrasound‐guided thyroid fine‐needle aspiration with rapid on‐site pathology evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is a valuable tool for specimen adequacy assessment in thyroid ultrasound (US)-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-guided FNA). To reduce the risk of nondiagnostic samples, additional needle passes may be needed at ROSE to ensure adequate sampling. Recommendations regarding the number of aspirates to ensure specimen adequacy are not well defined. Furthermore, there are limited data regarding nodule characteristics that may require increased sampling. In this study, we investigate conditions associated with requiring more than three needle passes during ROSE. METHODS: A retrospective quality review of all patients who underwent US-guided thyroid FNA by a single board-certified radiologist over a 1-year period was performed. A total of 122 patients were identified: 70 with three passes performed and 52 with more than three passes to achieve adequacy. RESULT: Our data demonstrate that large nodules (≥3 cm) were more likely than small nodules (≤1.1 cm) to require more than three passes to achieve adequacy. If a nodule was predominantly cystic or mixed cystic and solid, the sample was often adequate with only three passes. In cases of thyroiditis or nodules suspicious or diagnostic of neoplasia, there is a trend to require only three passes for adequacy. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data presented in this study, cytopathologists should be prepared for the potential need to obtain additional needle passes in larger (≥3 cm) nodules and provide reassurance to patients that this is an anticipated finding for these larger nodules.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".