The Role of Cytokeratin 5/6 as an Adjunct Diagnostic Tool in Breast Core Needle Biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the probability of finding malignancy on surgical excision after applying well-defined morphological criteria combined with immunohistochemical evaluation of cytokeratin 5/6 for the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsies is examined. On the basis of morphology alone, the reviewers reclassified the diagnoses of 140 core biopsies as follows: atypical ductal hyperplasia (n = 64), ductal hyperplasia of usual type (n = 44), flat epithelial atypia (n = 11), and miscellaneous benign (n = 21). Cytokeratin 5/6 immunostain was negative in 85.7% of atypical ductal hyperplasia cases and positive in 77.8% of ductal hyperplasia of usual type cases. The probability of predicting malignancy in a surgical specimen following a core biopsy increased from 43.6% to 67.8% (P = .002) by adhering to defined criteria and using cytokeratin 5/6 immunostain. Expertise and adherence to defined criteria are required to establish an accurate diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Cytokeratin 5/6 can be a useful adjunct in cases with ductal hyperplasia but not in columnar cell lesions, where it is universally negative.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".