The Spectrum of Polyoma Virus and Polyoma Virus‐Like Changes in Urine Cytology: When Should an Atypical Diagnosis Be Considered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology states that cells with well-recognized and typical changes of polyoma virus (PV) infection should not lead to a diagnosis of 'atypia, the prognostic significance of PV-like features is unknown. METHODS: Included were 284 urine cytology cases with PV or PV-like changes. Four cell types were identified. Cell A was typical of PV infection, cell B had a spider-web chromatin pattern, and cells C and D were degenerated cells with clumpy chromatin or homogeneous severely hyperchromatic nuclei, respectively. Events were correlated with a subsequent histological diagnosis of high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). RESULTS: 47% of cases had more than one cell type. The most common cell was D (64%) and the least common was A (27%). The most common cell to be present in isolation was D (n = 109, 60%). 92% of cases with cell A had other cell types. Overall, the presence of cell A was associated with a benign follow-up (1.2% association with HGUC). There was a gradual increase in the association with a HGUC diagnosis in cases with cells B (PPV = 8%), C (PPV = 15.5%), and D (PPV = 44%). The presence of only cells B, C, or D was predictive of HGUC in 22.4%, 33.3%, and 61.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cases with cell type A can be confidently diagnosed as 'negative for HGUC', even in the presence of associated cells with PV-like changes. Cases with cells displaying PV-like features (cell type B, C, or D) in the absence of type A features may represent degenerated HGUC cells.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".