Update on Salivary Gland Fine-Needle Aspiration and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a well-established procedure for the diagnosis and management of salivary gland lesions, despite challenges imposed by salivary gland tumor diversity, complexity, and cytomorphologic overlap. Until recently, the reporting of salivary gland FNA specimens was inconsistent among different institutions throughout the world, leading to diagnostic confusion among pathologists and clinicians. In 2015, an international group of pathologists initiated the development of an evidence-based tiered classification system for reporting salivary gland FNA specimens, the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC). The MSRSGC consists of 6 diagnostic categories, which incorporate the morphologic heterogeneity and overlap among various nonneoplastic, benign, and malignant lesions of the salivary glands. In addition, each MSRSGC diagnostic category is associated with a risk of malignancy and management recommendations. OBJECTIVE.—: To review the current status of salivary gland FNA, core needle biopsies, ancillary studies, and the beneficial role of the MSRSGC in providing a framework for reporting salivary gland lesions and guiding clinical management. DATA SOURCES.—: Literature review and personal institutional experience. CONCLUSIONS.—: The main goal of the MSRSGC is to improve communication between cytopathologists and treating clinicians, while also facilitating cytologic-histologic correlation, quality improvement, and research. Since its implementation, the MSRSGC has gained international acceptance as a tool to improve reporting standards and consistency in this complex diagnostic area, and it has been endorsed by the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology management guidelines for salivary gland cancer. The large amount of data from published studies using MSRSGC served as a basis for the recent update of the MSRSGC.
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 | 0.034 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".