A Rapid Cytological Screening as pre-Endoscopy Screening for Early Esophageal Squamous Cell Lesions: A Prospective Pilot Study from a Chinese Academic Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cytological detection of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains challenging. Therefore, we introduced a rapid cytological screening method and evaluated its efficacy as a pre-endoscopy screening for early ESCC and precursor lesions. Methods: This method consisted of a sponge sample retrieval, automatic liquid-based cytological treatment and slides preparation, computer-assisted screening and manual diagnosis. Efficacy for detection of early ESCC and precursor lesions was evaluated. Also, diagnostic efficiency was compared with manual diagnosis. Results: Eighty-three patients with early ESCC and precursor lesions and 2,090 asymptomatic participants with high risks of ESCC were enrolled. Whole procedure was accomplished within two working days. Abnormal cells were detected in all 83 patients, and in 272 (13.01%) subjects among 2,090 asymptomatic participants. Early ESCC, high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and reflux esophagitis and normal endoscopic findings were detected in 8, 13, 11, 187 and 53 participants with abnormal cells, respectively. The calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detection of early ESCC and precursor lesions were 100%, 88.34%, 11.76%, and 100%, respectively. Compared with manual diagnosis, this method was accomplished in a shorter time duration (5.4 ± 0.45 min vs 320.2 ± 132.4 min, p < 0.001), a higher diagnostic accuracy (96.7% vs74.4%, p = 0.015) and a better inter-observer agreement (93.3% vs66.7%, K = 0.286, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our study provides a promising methodology as pre-endoscopy screening for early ESCC and precursor 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".