A Basal Epithelial Phenotype Is More Frequent in Interval Breast Cancers Compared with Screen Detected Tumors
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
Interval breast cancer reduce the effectiveness of mammography screening programs. We studied 95 interval cancers, diagnosed during 1996 to 2001 as part of the population-based Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. These cases were matched on size (+/-2.0 mm) to 95 screen-detected breast cancers, and the tumors were compared by immunohistochemical methods using tissue microarrays. Patients with interval cancers were more likely to be younger [odds ratio (OR), 4.7; P = 0.0001], to have dense breasts (OR, 3.4; P = 0.004), and to have estrogen receptor-negative tumors (OR, 2.6, P = 0.01), and p53 expression was more frequent (OR, 4.0; P = 0.001). Notably, interval cancers were more likely to have a basal epithelial phenotype, in that expression of cytokeratin 5/6 (OR, 2.3; P = 0.04) and P-cadherin (OR, 2.5; P = 0.04) was more frequent in interval cases than in size-matched, screen-detected tumors. In a logistic regression model, p53 expression, age, and breast density were independent predictors of interval cancers. Our data suggest that breast cancers with a basal epithelial phenotype are more likely than nonbasal breast cancers to present between regular mammograms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it