A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (-4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%. CONCLUSION: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".