MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983675626 · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000031

Surgical considerations in locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

2014· review· en· W1983675626 on OpenAlexaff
Angel Arnaout, Jean-François Boileau, Muriel Brackstone

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreJewish General HospitalOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAxillaBreast cancerMultidisciplinary approachNeoadjuvant therapyChemotherapyRadiologySurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The definition of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) includes patients with large tumors, extensive regional lymph node involvement, or direct involvement of the skin or underlying chest wall. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery has become the standard of care and a valuable strategy in the multimodality management of LABC. Variations in practice exist and the purpose of this article is to explore the surgical considerations in the management of LABC. RECENT FINDINGS: There exist various diagnostic and treatment considerations in LABC patients that help guiding clinicians in the optimal management of LABC. The evolving concepts of breast conservation, immediate breast reconstruction and optimal management of the axilla are addressed. SUMMARY: LABC represents a heterogenous cohort of patients for whom a multidisciplinary care team is critical. A more detailed understanding of the surgical considerations will facilitate the optimal diagnostic evaluation and management of these patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207