Flat Epithelial Atypia on Breast Needle Core Biopsy: A Retrospective Study with Clinical-Pathological Correlation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are limited data to guide clinical management when flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is identified in breast needle core biopsies (NCBs). Our objectives were to determine the frequency of malignancy in subsequent breast excisions following NCB diagnosis of FEA, and to characterize the pathological and clinical features of associated tumors. Two hundred and fifty-six breast NCBs from a retrospective search (January 1999-July 2007) were blindly reviewed for FEA/other columnar cell lesions (CCLs). NCBs with co-existing carcinoma were excluded. The study included 211 NCBs: 116 (55%) with CCLs without atypia; 40 (19%) with CCLs with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), 15 (7%) with FEA and 40 (19%) with FEA and ADH; 94 cases had follow-up excisions. Ductal carcinoma in situ and/or invasive carcinoma were present in: 4/26 (15%) excisions with CCLs on NCB, 11/30 (37%) with CCLs + ADH, 1/7 (14%) with FEA alone, and 9/31 (29%) with FEA + ADH. (a) FEA was more frequently seen with ADH, than without ADH in NCBs, (b) FEA and CCLs were more frequently associated with malignancy when with ADH, and (c) tumors excised following NCB diagnosis of FEA+/-ADH had favorable prognostic factors. A conservative excision is warranted following a NCB diagnosis of FEA and ADH, and may be warranted for FEA alone.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it