Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The National Cancer Institute Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration State of the Science Conference: a Summation

Open access
Baloch, Zubair W, Cibas, Edmund S, Clark, Douglas P, Layfield, Lester J, Ljung, Britt-Marie, Pitman, Martha B, Abati, Andrea·2008·CytoJournal

Abstract

On October 22 and 23, 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) hosted NCI Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) State of the Science Conference, a two-day gathering in Bethesda, Maryland. Its mission was to establish a comprehensive interdisciplinary informational dialogue dedicated to thyroid FNA. Preparations for the conference began 18 months earlier with the designation of a steering committee, the appointment of nine working committees, coordination with co-sponsoring organizations, and the establishment of a dedicated permanent web site. The function of the website was to serve as a permanent educational tool for health care practitioners and patients alike, as well as to foster on-line dialogue. Six committees were charged with preparing summary documents based on literature reviews on the following subjects: 1. Indications/Pre-FNA requirements; 2. Training and Credentialing; 3. Technique; 4. Terminology and Morphologic Criteria; 5. Ancillary Studies; and 6. Post-FNA Options for Testing and Treatment. Three additional committees were formed, one each to oversee the website, publications ensuing from the conference and the establishment of an on-line educational cytopathology atlas. Literature reviews were limited to English language publications dating back to 1995, using PubMed as the search engine, with key words determined by the committee members. The first draft of the committees' summary documents (Review and Conclusions) was posted on the web site and open for on-line forum discussion from May 1-June 30, 2007. There were several subsequent drafts and on-line discussion periods (Aug 15 – Sept. 30, 2007 and Nov. 30-Dec. 15, 2007). The documents underwent revision after each comment period prior to re-posting on the web. The two-day live conference in October, attended by 154 registrants, comprised of pathologists, endocrinologists, surgeons, and radiologists, gave the committees an in-depth opportunity to present their conclusions and debate controversial areas. This is an abridged version of the topics reviewed at the conference and the website. This is not a standards of practice guideline, nor is it endorsed as such by the National Cancer Institute.

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 · 10.1186/1742-6413-5-6

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Baloch, Z. W., Cibas, E. S., Clark, D. P., Layfield, L. J., Ljung, B.-M., Pitman, M. B., & Abati, A.
Venue
CytoJournal
Published
2008
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
6
ISSN
  • 0974-5963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-6413
OpenAlex
W2133075923
Cited by
382
References
1
FWCI
19.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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: The National Cancer Institute Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration State of the Science Conference: a Summation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1742-6413-5-6
The paper
Baloch, Z. W., Cibas, E. S., Clark, D. P., Layfield, L. J., Ljung, B.-M., Pitman, M. B., & Abati, A. (2008). The National Cancer Institute Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration State of the Science Conference: a Summation. CytoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-6413-5-6

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.