Treatment Choices in Managing Bethesda III and IV Thyroid Nodules: A Canadian Multi‐institutional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Patient‐centered decision making is increasingly identified as a desirable component of medical care. To manage indeterminate thyroid nodules, patients are offered the options of surveillance, diagnostic hemithyroidectomy, or molecular testing. Our objective was to identify factors associated with decision making in this population. Study Design This is a retrospective cross‐sectional study of patients with Bethesda III and IV thyroid nodules. Setting Multi‐institutional. Methods Factors of interest included age, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), nodule size, institution, attending surgeon, surgeon payment model, and hospital type. Our outcome of interest was the initial management decision made by patients. Results A total of 956 patients were included. The majority of patients had Bethesda III nodules (n = 738, 77%). A total of 538 (56%) patients chose surgery, 413 (43%) chose surveillance, and 5 (1%) chose molecular testing. There was a significant variation in management decision based on attending surgeon (proportion of patients choosing surgery: 15%‐83%; P ≤.0001). Fee‐for‐service surgeon payment models (odds ratio [OR], 1.657; 95% CI, 1.263‐2.175; P <. 001) and community hospital settings (OR, 1.529; 95% CI, 1.145‐2.042; P <. 001) were associated with the decision for surgery. Larger nodule size, younger patients, and Bethesda IV nodules were also associated with surgery. Conclusion While it seems appropriate that larger nodules, younger age, and higher Bethesda class were associated with decision for surgery, we also identified attending surgeon, surgeon payment model, and hospital type as important factors. Given this, standardizing management discussions may improve patient‐centered shared decision making.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".