MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031676417 · doi:10.4061/2011/504940

Issues Related to Sentinel Lymph Node Assessment in the Management of Breast Cancer—What Are Relevant in Pathology Reports?

2011· article· en· W2031676417 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Tai, Kurian Joseph, Edward Yu

Bibliographic record

VenuePathology Research International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioCanadian Red Cross Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSentinel nodeDissection (medical)Axillary DissectionBiopsyAxillary Lymph Node DissectionLymph nodeRadiologyAxillaSentinel lymph nodeMetastasisCancerGeneral surgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most cancer centers now perform sentinel node (SN) biopsies. The limited number of SNs sampled compared with an axillary dissection has allowed more comprehensive lymph node analysis resulting in increased detection of micrometastases. Many node-negative cases are now reclassified as micrometastatic. Recent research on SN biopsy focuses on whether axillary dissection is always necessary when the SN is positive. Some subgroups of patients have a higher risk of more nodal metastases when completion axillary dissections were performed. This paper summarizes the different studies and examines what are the clinically relevant items to report on SN node pathology: volume or size of nodal metastasis, location within the node, extranodal extension, number of involved SN(s) and non-SN(s), total number of SN, and total number of nodes on axillary dissection, if performed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathology Research InternationalSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207