MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514790629 · doi:10.1177/229255031101900308

Juvenile Fibroadenoma of the Breast: Treatment and Literature Review

2011· article· en· W1514790629 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Wendy K.Y. Ng, Mohamed Amir Mrad, Mitchell H. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibroadenomaPathologicalResectionBreast reductionSurgeryRadiologyGeneral surgeryMammaplastyBreast cancerPathologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is uncommon to find palpable breast masses in young patients. Generally, such masses are benign. Juvenile fibroadenoma is the most frequent benign tumour of the breast. The present report describes a case involving a 17-year-old girl with unilateral right breast hypertrophy, for whom resection and breast reduction was effectively achieved.Resection was combined with an aesthetically pleasing outcome through breast reduction, via a wise pattern of reduction with a superior pedicle.While young patients rarely present with breast masses, the consideration of fibroadenoma in these cases is always warranted. The disconcerting appearance of the breasts for adolescents afflicted by such benign masses underscores the importance of achieving aesthetically optimal outcomes and attaining adequate tumour resection for diagnostic purposes through pathological specimens. In the present case, the young patient underwent a procedure that fulfilled both of these valuable goals through careful pre-operative planning, pedicle selection and skin resection patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207