Adenoid Cystic Breast Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast (ACCB) is a rare malignancy with favorable prognosis: axillary lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and death due to disease are uncommon. ACCB may recur locally many years after primary surgical excision and may be substantially higher if primary procedure is lumpectomy rather than mastectomy. METHODS: Pathology database searched to identify patients diagnosed with ACCB between 1988 and 2007 at Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.Two pathologists independently reviewed histology to confirm diagnosis of ACCB, and documented surgical procedure, tumor size, tumor grade, surgical margin, and lymph node status. Immunohistochemistry was performed on representative blocks and independently reviewed by 2 pathologists. Clinical and radiologic data were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Fifteen cases of ACCB were identified and pathology slides were available for 12. The median age was 62 years. Seven patients presented with a palpable mass and breast pain was described in 3. Positive surgical margins were identified in 5 patients (42%). Only 3 patients had postoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows frequent resection margin involvement in ACCB. Neither clinical nor mammographic examination consistently delineated full tumor extent preoperatively. Future use of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative assessment may prevent high positive margin rate when lumpectomy is planned. Histologic assessment of tumor extent may be difficult, but immunohistochemistry may be helpful in this regard.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".