Does prior mediastinal lymph node aspiration contribute to false-positive positron emission tomography–computed tomography?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper staging of the mediastinum is an essential component of lung cancer evaluation. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PETCT) and endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are an integral part of this process. False-positive PETCT results can occur following surgical procedures but has not been demonstrated following EBUS-TBNA. We aimed to determine whether false-positive PETCT rates increase when EBUS-TBNA is performed prior to PETCT. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out of clinical cases that underwent both PETCT and EBUS-TBNA within 30 days for the suspected malignancy. The impact of test sequence on the PETCT false-positive rate (FPR) was determined using Generalised Estimating Equation logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 675 lymph node stations were sampled and imaged on PETCT. Overall, 332 (49.2%) nodes were sampled by EBUS-TBNA before PETCT, and 343 (50.8%) afterwards, with the interval between EBUS and subsequent PETCT being a mean±sd of 11.6±6.8 days (range 1-29). The FPR on qualitative PETCT for the EBUS first group was 41 (23.2%) out of 164, and for PETCT first it was 57 (29.0%) out of 193 for a difference of 5.8% (95% CI -3.4-14.7, p=0.22). In the regression model, EBUS as the first test was associated with a lower FPR when using the clinical PETCT interpretation. INTERPRETATION: The performance of EBUS-TBNA sampling did not influence the FPR of PETCT when bronchoscopy took place in the 30 days prior to testing. Test sequence should be selected based on other clinical considerations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".