Cavernous hemangioma of the breast: Mammographic and sonographic findings and follow‐up in a patient receiving hormone‐replacement therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the case of a 78-year-old woman who had been receiving hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) for 6 years and had a 4-month history of a painless nodule in the 9 o'clock position in her right breast. Mammography performed 4 years previously had shown a 4-mm bilobed, ovoid, well-defined nodule in that location; mammography performed 1 year previously had shown that the nodule had increased to 6 mm. We performed mammographic and sonographic examinations, which revealed a 10-mm ovoid nodule in the same 9 o'clock position in the right breast. The imaging findings appeared to indicate benignity, but because of the increasing size of the nodule, we undertook an ultrasound-guided large-core needle biopsy. The histopathologic diagnosis was typical cavernous hemangioma. It was not excised, but HRT was discontinued. Follow-up mammography and sonography 8 months later showed that the nodule had decreased to 6 mm. We believe that the HRT played a contributory role in the increasing size of this patient's cavernous hemangioma. The use of ultrasound-guided large-core needle biopsy is reliable enough to ascertain the benignity of such masses and can thus avoid, if it is clinically appropriate, the need for their surgical removal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".