Axillary reverse mapping in breast cancer: A Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the axillary reverse lymphatic mapping (ARM) procedure for reducing the risk of arm lymphedema after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The ARM procedure was carried out with a subareolar injection of technetium-99 sulfur colloid the morning of surgery, and a patent blue dye injection into the upper inner arm after anesthesia. RESULTS: Fifty-two women made up our study population. Thirty-seven patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and 15 patients underwent an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for known nodal metastasis. The sentinel lymph node was identified in 36 of the 37 cases who underwent SLNB alone and in 12 of 15 patients who underwent on ALND. In 13 patients, both blue and radioactive lymph nodes or lymphatics were clearly identified (25%) and 5 patients had a clear crossover with nodes being both blue and hot. Only a single patient with crossover lymphatics had metastases present in their sentinel node. CONCLUSION: The ARM technique did not prevent identification of the SLN and we identified much greater crossover than reported. We had a single patient, who underwent a sentinel node biopsy, with mild arm lymphedema (1.9%) after 2 years of follow up.
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".