MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114913587 · doi:10.5858/2003-127-36-mvfb

Male versus female breast cancers. A population-based comparative immunohistochemical analysis.

2003· article· en· W114913587 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMale Breast Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerImmunohistochemistryProgesterone receptorGrading (engineering)MedicineOncologyEstrogen receptorContext (archaeology)Internal medicineMale breast cancerCancerPopulationEstrogenGynecologyMammary glandPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The rate of male breast cancer is a small fraction of that observed in females, thus severely limiting our understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition. It remains unclear whether the biological behavior and tumor progression associated with male breast cancer parallel that of the female form. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the immunohistochemical profile of male breast carcinomas and to compare this profile with that of stage-matched female breast cancers. DESIGN: Seventy-five cases of primary male breast cancer were identified using the records of the Saskatchewan Cancer Foundation over a period of 26 years (1970-1996). Fifty-nine of these cases had formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks available for the purposes of this study. All cases were reviewed and a standardized modified Bloom-Richardson grading criterion was applied. Estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, c-Erb-B2 expression, p53 expression, and Bcl-2 expression were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Results from 240 consecutive cases of stage-matched female breast cancers analyzed in the same laboratory were used as a standard set for comparison. RESULTS: Male breast cancers tended to be high grade (85% grade 3) in comparison with the female breast cancers (50% grade 3). In descriptive analysis across all stages of disease, male carcinomas were more frequently estrogen receptor positive (81% vs 69%) than their female counterparts. Despite their high grade, they were less likely to overexpress p53 (9% vs 28%) and Erb-B2 (5% vs 17%) than the female counterparts. There was no significant difference in either progesterone receptor (63% vs 56%) or Bcl-2 (79% vs 76%) overexpression. Stratified analysis by stage-matched controls showed no statistically significant differences among the men and women with stage I disease. However, in stage II-matched samples, statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups. The male cancers were more likely to overexpress estrogen receptor (81.6% vs 64.4%, P = .04), progesterone receptor (71.1% vs 47.5%, P = .01), and Bcl-2 (78.9% vs 69.4%, P = .20). They also showed statistically significant lower expression of p53 (7.9% vs 36.3%, P = .001) and Erb-B2 (5.3% vs 23.8% P = .01). CONCLUSION: Male breast cancers display distinct immunophenotypic differences from those occurring in women, implying a different pathogenesis in the evolution and progression of this disease. Such differences may play key roles in therapeutic management, warranting different treatment strategies in comparison to female breast cancers.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.266 · 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