Sonography of palpable breast cancer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because of the increasing use of sonography to rule out cancer in women with palpable breast abnormalities, this study was performed to determine the rate of sonographically occult malignancy in this clinical setting. METHODS: Women who were recommended for biopsy based on mammographic and/or clinical findings underwent breast sonography. This study retrospectively analyzed the subset of patients with palpable malignant lesions. Lesions were classified as visible or occult on mammography and sonography. Patients without a tissue diagnosis of tumor were excluded. RESULTS: Of 1,346 masses that underwent biopsy or aspiration, 616 lesions were palpable, and of these, 293 were malignant. Sonography detected all 293 palpable malignant lesions (95% confidence interval for sensitivity, 99-100%). Eighteen lesions were mammographically occult. The median lesion size as determined by sonography was 1.8 cm; for the lesions that were mammographically occult, the median size was 1.6 cm. The most common histopathologic diagnosis for both groups of lesions was infiltrating ductal carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: All palpable malignant breast lesions were visible by sonography in patients in whom a biopsy was recommended. However, we caution that until the false-negative rate of sonography for equivocal palpable abnormalities is determined prospectively, sonography cannot be accurately applied to rule out malignancy in this setting.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 it