Fine needle aspiration for evaluation of breast masses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fine needle aspiration has been used for many years as a diagnostic tool for breast lesions, with high sensitivity and specificity. There is controversy as to whether this technique should be replaced by other diagnostic procedures such as core biopsy. This review aims to re-evaluate the usefulness of breast fine needle aspiration. RECENT FINDINGS: During the past 10 years many institutions have replaced fine needle aspiration by core biopsy and related techniques such as vacuum-assisted core biopsy and advanced breast biopsy instrument action. Other institutions continue to use fine needle aspiration as a first line of investigation for breast lesions. This technique is especially useful in radiologically benign lesions and when combined with image guidance. The use of the 'triple test' (combined cytologic, clinical and radiologic findings) decreases false-negative and false-positive results. SUMMARY: Fine needle aspiration continues to be an acceptable and reliable procedure for the preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions, particularly in developing countries, and when used as part of the 'triple test'. Accurate diagnosis requires experience in both aspiration technique and specimen interpretation. Clinicians should be mindful of the limitations of the technique. The choice between fine needle aspiration and core biopsy should be individualized for the patient.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".