Time to disease recurrence in basal‐type breast cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: : Basal-like breast cancers are a subgroup of breast cancers defined by the absence of staining for estrogen-receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2/neu) and by positive staining for the cytokeratins (CKs) expressed in the myoepithelial cells of the ducts and lobules (CK5/CK6, CK14) and for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This class of tumors has an unusually aggressive course, and it is not clear whether conventional prognostic factors for breast cancers also predict outcome for patients who have the basal phenotype. METHODS: : A panel of 962 breast cancers was stained for 5 markers (ER, PR, HER-2/neu, CK5/CK6, and EGFR). The patients were followed for clinical outcomes for up to 15 years from diagnosis, and the rates of distant disease recurrence and death were compared by tumor size (< or =2 cm or >2 cm) and by lymph node status within the subgroups of women with basal and nonbasal cancers. RESULTS: : Of the 962 women with breast cancer, 116 cancers were basal (12%), 845 were nonbasal (88%), and 1 could not be classified as either basal or nonbasal and was excluded. In total, 426 tumors measured < or =2 cm (45%), and 530 tumors measured >2 cm (55%). Among women with nonbasal cancers, large tumor size was an adverse prognostic factor. Among women with basal cancers, a transient adverse effect of size on disease recurrence was observed; however, after 10 years, mortality rates were equal for women with small tumors and women with large tumors. CONCLUSIONS: : Among women with basal breast cancers, the long-term prognosis was similar for women with large tumors and women with small tumors. However, women with large basal tumors appeared to develop recurrent disease sooner. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".