Quantitative Target Sizes for Breast Tumor Detection Prior to Metastasis: A Prerequisite to Rational Design of 4D Scanners for Breast Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to determine a breast cancer tumor target size for new screening equipment and molecular detection. Records of women aged 40-69 years diagnosed in 1988-1997 with a nonmetastasized, node-negative, or node-positive T1-stage breast cancer were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) public-use database. The linear, Gompertzian, lognormal, and power-exponential models of the effect of tumor size on breast cancer specific mortality were compared using corresponding transforms of size in multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Criteria for comparison were the linearization of the size transforms and the Nagelkerke R2N index for the Cox models. Our results show that the assumption of a linear effect of tumor size was rejected by the linearity test (P=0.05). The Gompertzian, lognormal, and power-exponential transforms satisfied the test with P-values of 0.08, 0.29, and 0.14, respectively. The corresponding R2N were 0.08410, 0.08420, and 0.08414, respectively, showing a marginally best fit with the lognormal model, which was selected as a model for small tumors. The lognormal function with unadjusted crude death rates gave a lognormal-location parameter of 25 and shape parameter of 1.7, while the corresponding values in multivariate models were 18 and 2, respectively. The derivation of the lognormal model indicates tumor growth acceleration starting at 3 mm (unadjusted crude data) or 2 mm (multivariate model). The breast cancer tumor target size for screening equipment, whether by imaging or molecular detection, is therefore 2 mm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".