MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417047708 · doi:10.1055/s-0046-1821003

Through-the-Needle Biopsy Revisited: How Patient Selection and Standardization Reduce Adverse Events in Pancreatic Cyst Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4417047708 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Cristina Conti Bellocchi, Maria Vittoria Teso, Erminia Manfrin, Sokol Sina, Antonio Pea, Nicolò de Pretis, Roberto Salvia, Luca Frulloni, Stefano Francesco Crinò

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectBiopsyCystMalignancyEndoscopic ultrasoundUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are increasingly being detected due to the widespread use of cross-sectional imaging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the preferred modality for evaluating their nature and malignancy risk, yet fluid analysis and cytology offer limited sensitivity. Through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) has emerged as a more accurate diagnostic tool, though it is associated with higher adverse event (AE) rates. In 2021, our center implemented a selective TTNB protocol excluding frail or elderly patients and suspected IPMNs and standardizing the procedure to two passes, complete cyst aspiration, and selective antibiotic prophylaxis. This study aimed to compare AE rates before and after protocol implementation, evaluate safety factors including antibiotic use, and assess TTNB adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients referred for TTNB at AOUI Verona between March 2016 and March 2025, dividing them into two groups: before (Group A) and after (Group B) protocol adoption. Patients not punctured due to technical issues, lack of indication, or presumed pseudocystic nature were excluded. Results: Of 970 patients evaluated by EUS, 190 underwent TTNB (100 in Group A and 90 in Group B). Lesions were mainly located in the pancreatic body or tail, with a significantly larger size in Group B. The overall AE rate was 6.3%, significantly higher in Group A (11%) than in Group B (1%). Antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with AE occurrence. TTNB adequacy was 88.9%, and diagnostic accuracy was 75.3%. Among 68 surgical cases, TTNB was accurate in 79.4%. Conclusions: A selective and standardized TTNB approach significantly reduces AEs while maintaining high adequacy and diagnostic accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207