Diagnosis of Metachronous Contralateral Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of primary breast cancers (PBCs) and metachronous contralateral breast cancers (MCBCs). Between 1984 and 1996, 236 women treated with curative intent for PBC who developed a MCBC >6 months after initial diagnosis (without previous evidence of distant metastases) were retrospectively evaluated for clinical and pathologic characteristics and method of diagnosis of their tumors. There were more noninvasive cancers among the MCBCs than the PBCs (11.4% and 5.1%, respectively, p < 0.02). Among the invasive cancers, the mean size of the MCBCs was smaller than the PBCs (1.94 versus 2.55 cm, p < 0.001). MCBCs were more likely than PBCs to be mammographically detected (46.2% versus 19.9%, p < 0.001). Tumor size was correlated with the method of diagnosis. The mean tumor size was 1.39, 2.02, and 2.69 cm for mammogram-, physician-, and patient-detected tumors, respectively. Among patients having axillary lymph node dissections, mammogram- and physician-detected tumors were less likely to have lymph node metastases than patient-detected tumors (22.0% versus 41.2%, p < 0.005). Regular follow-up of breast cancer patients diagnoses MCBCs when they are smaller and less likely to have nodal metastases than PBCs mainly because of early mammographic detection.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".