Mammoplasty for symmetry in breast reconstruction and histologic assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In breast reconstruction, complementary surgery on the contralateral breast is sometimes necessary to obtain a satisfactory aesthetic result. This complementary mammoplasty for symmetry gives the surgeon the opportunity to verify the state of the mammary glandular tissue to rule out a possible occult tumour in the contralateral breast. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of borderline lesions and of in situ and invasive carcinoma in specimens of the contralateral breast in a mammoplasty for symmetry in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 145 breast reconstructions with mammoplasty for symmetry conducted at the Tours Regional Teaching Hospital in France. RESULTS: The glandular histologic result after mammoplasty was normal in 45.5% of patients, with benign pathologies in 38.9% and borderline lesions in 15.6% of patients. No invasive or in situ carcinoma was detected. CONCLUSION: Systematic histologic analysis of glandular mammary tissue sampled after reduction mammoplasty in the particular context of breast reconstruction after breast cancer makes it possible to discover lesions that were not seen in presurgical evaluation. The early management of these borderline occult lesions could reduce the incidence of breast cancer in these at-risk 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".