Is routine pathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia necessary? A 15-year retrospective pathological and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reconsider the routine plastic surgical practice of requesting histopathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia. METHOD: The present study was a retrospective histopathological review (15-year period [1996 to 2012]) involving gynecomastia tissue samples received at the pathology laboratory in the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan). The Laboratory Information System (LIS) identified all specimens using the key search words "gynecomastia", "gynaecomastia", "gynecomazia" and "gynaecomazia". A literature review to identify all cases of incidentally discovered malignancies in gynecomastia tissue specimens over a 15-year period (1996 to present) was undertaken. RESULTS: The 15-year LIS search detected a total of 452 patients that included two cases of pseudogynecomastia (0.4%). Patients' age ranged from five to 92 years and 43% of the cases were bilateral (28% left sided, 29% right sided). The weight of the specimens received ranged from 0.2 g to 1147.2 g. All cases showed no significant histopathological concerns. The number of tissue blocks sampled ranged from one to 42, averaging four blocks/case (approximately $105/case), resulting in a cost of approximately $3,200/year, with a 15-year expenditure of approximately $48,000. The literature review identified a total of 15 incidental findings: ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases), atypical ductal hyperplasia (two cases) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (one case). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of evidence-based literature, and because no significant pathological findings were detected in this particular cohort of 452 cases with 2178 slides, the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate whether routine histopathological examination of tissue from gynecomastia remains necessary. The current climate of health care budget fiscal restraints warrants reassessment of the current policies and practices of sending tissue samples of gynecomastia incurring negative productivity costs on routine histopathological examination.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".