Elastic moduli of normal and pathological human breast tissues: an inversion-technique-based investigation of 169 samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding and quantifying the mechanical properties of breast tissues has been a subject of interest for the past two decades. This has been motivated in part by interest in modelling soft tissue response for surgery planning and virtual-reality-based surgical training. Interpreting elastography images for diagnostic purposes also requires a sound understanding of normal and pathological tissue mechanical properties. Reliable data on tissue elastic properties are very limited and those which are available tend to be inconsistent, in part as a result of measurement methodology. We have developed specialized techniques to measure tissue elasticity of breast normal tissues and tumour specimens and applied them to 169 fresh ex vivo breast tissue samples including fat and fibroglandular tissue as well as a range of benign and malignant breast tumour types. Results show that, under small deformation conditions, the elastic modulus of normal breast fat and fibroglandular tissues are similar while fibroadenomas were approximately twice the stiffness. Fibrocystic disease and malignant tumours exhibited a 3-6-fold increased stiffness with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma exhibiting up to a 13-fold increase in stiffness compared to fibrogalndular tissue. A statistical analysis showed that differences between the elastic modulus of the majority of those tissues were statistically significant. Implications for the specificity advantages of elastography are reviewed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".