MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531229733

Effect on biopsy technique of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities.

2002· article· en· W1531229733 on OpenAlexaff
Chad G. Ball, Michael Butchart, John K. MacFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBI-RADSBiopsyRadiologyBreast imagingMammographyPathologicalRetrospective cohort studyCore biopsyLesionBreast biopsyBreast cancerSurgeryPathologyInternal medicineCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) defines a group of patients with mammographic abnormalities in whom stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) is appropriate. DESIGN: A blinded retrospective validation sample. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred and nine consecutive patients who underwent fine-wire localization breast biopsy (FWLB) between Jan. 1, 1994, and June 1, 1999, with a known final pathological diagnosis. INTERVENTION: Blinded mammographic review and classification using the BI-RADS; review of corresponding pathological findings from FWLBs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation of pathological findings with each BI-RADS category and analysis of the predictive value of clinical and radiologic features. RESULTS: BI-RADS findings were as follows: 0 malignant lesions in 10 category 3 cases, 18 malignant lesions (3 in situ, 15 invasive) in 68 category 4 cases and 24 malignant lesions (8 in situ and 16 invasive) in 31 category 5 cases. There was 1 malignant lesion in 22 category 4 cases in women younger than 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: SCNB should be applied to BI-RADS categories 3 and 4 (< 50 yr of age). FWLB should be reserved for category 4 (> 50 yr of age) and category 5 cases. This algorithm will reduce the morbidity and cost of breast biopsies in patients with nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207