Ductoscopic Cytology to Detect Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fiberoptic ductoscopy allows direct visualization of the breast ductal lumen, providing a targeted approach to the diagnosis of intraductal disease. The purpose of this prospective study was to determine whether (1) endoscopic evaluation of the breast could be reliably performed, and (2) ductoscopic data (intraductal distance traveled, visual observations, epithelial and foam cell quantity, cytology) predict whether a woman has breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ductoscopic information was collected on intraductal distance traveled, visual observations, epithelial and foam cell quantity, and cytology. RESULTS: Ductoscopic samples were successfully collected in 106/108 attempts. The first six specimens collected were acellular. Of the 100 remaining ductoscopic specimens, 37 were from breasts with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer, 10 from breasts with precancerous lesions, 37 duct hyperplasia/papilloma, 11 histologically normal specimens, and five specimens from breasts that did not undergo subsequent surgical excision. The ability to travel intraductally > or = 10 cm was greater in women with hyperplasia and papilloma (with and without atypia) lesions. Intraductal lesions that were visually considered tumors were more often hyperplasia/papilloma and malignant than other lesions. Extrinsic duct occlusion was observed only in malignant lesions. Excluding learning curve samples, 67/100 (45% of normal, 68% of hyperplastic, 90% of precancerous, 82% of ductal carcinoma in situ, and 70% of invasive) fiberoptic ductoscopy specimens had adequate epithelial cells, and all duct cannulation attempts except two were successful. There was one false-positive cytologic result in a woman found to have a papilloma. Foam cell quantity was significantly related to epithelial cell quantity. CONCLUSION: Fiberoptic ductoscopy is feasible in the vast majority of subjects. Fiberoptic ductoscopy is a specific but not sufficiently sensitive method to be used alone to diagnose breast cancer. The presence of highly atypical epithelial cells in specimens from breasts containing papillomas is a pitfall of this method. Caution must be exercised to avoid a false-positive diagnosis in patients with spontaneous nipple discharge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".