Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fine-needle aspiration of thyroid nodules: A study of 4703 patients with histologic and clinical correlations

Open access
Yang, Jack, Schnadig, Vicki, Logrono, Roberto, Wasserman, Patricia G.·2007·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology recently proposed 6 diagnostic categories for the classification of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. Using these categories, the experience with FNA from 2 institutions was studied with emphasis on cytologic-histologic correlation, source of errors, and clinical management. METHODS: Patient cytology data were retrieved by a retrospective search of thyroid FNA in the institutional databases. Cytologic diagnoses were classified as unsatisfactory, benign, atypical cellular lesion (ACL), follicular neoplasm (FN), suspicious for malignancy, and positive for malignancy. Samples with a histologic discrepancy were re-evaluated, and clinical follow-up information was recorded. RESULTS: Of 4703 FNA samples, 10.4% were classified as unsatisfactory, 64.6% were classified as benign, 3.2% were classified as ACL, 11.6% were classified as FN, 2.6% were classified as suspicious, and 7.6% were classified as malignant. Five hundred twelve patients had at least 1 repeat FNA, mainly for results in the unsatisfactory and ACL categories. One thousand fifty-two patients had surgical follow-up, including 14.9% of patients with unsatisfactory FNA results, 9.8% of patients with benign results, 40.6% of patients with ACL results, 63.1% of patients with FN results, 86.1% of patients with suspicious results, and 79.3% of patients with malignant results. The rates for histologically confirmed malignancy in these categories were 10.9%, 7.3%, 13.5%, 32.2%, 64.7%, and 98.6%, respectively. The cytologic-histologic diagnostic discrepancy rate was 15.3%. Sources of errors included diagnoses on inadequate specimens, sample errors, and overlapping cytologic features between hyperplastic nodules and follicular adenoma. The sensitivity and specificity of thyroid FNA for the diagnosis of malignancy were 94% and 98.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that FNA provides an accurate diagnosis of thyroid malignancy. The 6 diagnostic categories were beneficial for triaging patients for either clinical follow-up or surgical management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.22955

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Yang, J., Schnadig, V., Logrono, R., & Wasserman, P. G.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-06
Volume
111
Issue
5
Pages
306-315
ISSN
0008-543X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017615299
Cited by
685
References
21
FWCI
21.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fine-needle aspiration of thyroid nodules: A study of 4703 patients with histologic and clinical correlations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.22955
The paper
Yang, J., Schnadig, V., Logrono, R., & Wasserman, P. G. (2007). Fine-needle aspiration of thyroid nodules: A study of 4703 patients with histologic and clinical correlations. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22955

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.