ArticleCancer cytopathology2026
Molecular testing and other metrics in thyroid cytology as quality-assurance measures in evaluating variation among pathologists in the diagnosis of atypia of undetermined significance.
Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AUS in Thyroid Cytology: A 21-Year Institutional Experience and the Impact of Atypia Subclassification.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Article
- Molecular testing and other metrics in thyroid cytology as quality-assurance measures in evaluating variation among pathologists in the diagnosis of atypia of undetermined significance.Cancer cytopathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtypia of undetermined significance (AUS) is a subjective diagnosis with reported interinstitutional rates ranging from 1% to 20%. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology (TBS) endorsed ≤10% as an achievable target; however, lowering AUS rates without informed, adjusted diagnostic thresholds can compromise the sensitivity of thyroid cytology. The authors conducted this study to identify quality-assurance measures that can assess individual pathologist's metrics compared with laboratory averages and published benchmarks and can provide feedback to pathologists on the causes of discrepancy.
methodsAUS rates of 15 cytopathology-boarded pathologists were correlated with AUS:malignant ratios (AUS:M), histologic risks of malignancy (ROMs), and Afirma molecular-positive call rates (PCRs), and scatterplots were constructed. The distribution of pathologist TBS diagnostic categories was compared with laboratory averages and correlated with the above metrics.
resultsPathologist AUS rates ranged from 7% to 44% (mean, 19%; 926 of 4801 cases). Average AUS:M and ROM rates were 7.0% and 68% (range, 3%-35% and 25%-87%), respectively. Regression analysis highlighted pathologists' metrics that were outliers. Evaluation of the distribution of individual pathologist's TBS diagnostic categories identified patterns/trends that explained deviations from laboratory averages, including patterns of significant overcalling of benign as AUS and downgrading diagnoses across multiple TBS categories.
conclusionsCorrelation of AUS, AUS:M, and ROM with molecular results, in addition to the distribution of pathologist TBS categories, offer a robust framework for quality assurance that illustrates deviations from target benchmarks, including shifts in interpretations from one TBS category to another. Giving feedback to pathologists regarding their practice patterns can help standardize diagnostic thresholds and meet designated target metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.