MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ductoscopic Cytology to Detect Breast Cancer

2004· article· es· W1995171367 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cancer Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsIntraductal papillomaMedicinePapillomaDuctal carcinomaPathologyAtypiaCytologyBreast cancerCarcinoma in situNipple dischargeCarcinomaHyperplasiaAtypical hyperplasiaRadiologyCancerMammographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · 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