Experience with the advanced breast biopsy instrumentation system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report early experience with the advanced breast biopsy instrumentation (ABBI) system and to compare the results with those of other published studies. DESIGN: A nonrandomized case series. SETTING: An outpatient breast diagnostic centre at a large urban community hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-four women; 27 had suspicious calcifications, 2 had a nonpalpable mass and 5 had both. INTERVENTION: The ABBI procedure to excise a breast lesion or obtain a representative sample for histologic examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success of the procedure with respect to diagnosis, sample quality, technical problems, margins of tumour free tissue and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Malignant tissue was diagnosed in 7 women (21%) and atypical ductal hyperplasia in 2 (6%). In all cancers, the obtained samples had malignant cells present at the margins or less than 1 mm away. Technical problems were encountered in 32% of cases. Manual extraction of the specimen was required in 21% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary data correlate well with those of other published results. Although it is possible that a small number of cases and a relatively high proportion of technical difficulties may represent a normal learning curve, there is a definite need for improvement of some ABBI components. ABBI does not appear to provide adequate margins of uninvolved tissue in patients with cancer and thus should not be used with curative intent. ABBI provides excellent quality samples for pathological study and good patient satisfaction. There are not yet enough data for meaningful comparison of ABBI with stereotactic core biopsy and excisional biopsy with needle localization.
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".