MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388517342 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1765291

Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided End-Cutting Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) Needles For Tissue Sampling of Abdominal and Mediastinal Lymphadenopathies: A Prospective Multicentre Series

2023· article· en· W4388517342 on OpenAlexaff
Kareem Khalaf, Silvia Carrara, Daoud Rahal, Tommy Rizkala, Glenn Koleth, M. Andreozzi, Benedetto Mangiavillano, A. Facciorusso, Marco Spadaccini, Matteo Colombo, Alessandro Fugazza, Roberta Maselli, Cesare Hassan, Alessandro Repici

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundRadiologyBiopsySampling (signal processing)Fine needle biopsyEndoscopyProspective cohort studyAdverse effectSurgeryFine-needle aspirationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims The role of the newer EUS-fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles in lymphadenopathies (LA) is still underevaluation. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the adverse event rate of EUS-FNB indiagnosing LA. Methods From June 2015 to 2022, all patients referred to 4 institutions for EUS-FNB of mediastinal and abdominal LAwere enrolled. 22G Franseen tip or 25G Sharkcore needles were used. The gold standard for positive resultswas surgery or imaging and clinical evolution over a follow-up of at least one year [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ]. Results A total of 100 consecutive patients were enrolled, consisting of those with a new diagnosis of LA (40%),presence of LA with a previous history of neoplasia (51%), or suspected lymphoproliferative disease (9%).EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all LA patients with 2 to 3 passes (mean 2.62±0.93). The overall EUS-FNB sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were96.20%, 100%, 100%, 87.50%, and 97.00%, respectively. Histological analysis was feasible in 89% of cases.Cytological evaluation was performed in 67% of specimens. There was no statistical difference between theaccuracy of the 22G or 25G needle (p=0.63). A sub-analysis on lymphoproliferative disease revealed asensitivity and accuracy of 89.29% and 90.0%. No complications were recorded. Conclusions EUS-FNB with new end-cutting needles is a valuable and safe method to diagnose LA. The high quality ofhistological cores and the good amount of tissue allowed a complete immunohistochemical analysis ofmetastatic LA and precise subtyping of the lymphomas. Publication History Article published online: 14 April 2023 © 2023. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207