MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061775616 · doi:10.1177/1066896906299119

Metastatic Potential of Encapsulated (Intracystic) Papillary Carcinoma of the Breast: A Report of 2 Cases With Axillary Lymph Node Micrometastases

2007· article· en· W2061775616 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Marie Mulligan, Frances P. O’Malley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyoepithelial cellMedicineLymphPathologyCarcinomaSentinel lymph nodeAxillary lymph nodesLymph nodeBreast carcinomaBiopsyMetastasisAxillaBreast cancerCancerImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracystic papillary carcinoma of the breast has rarely been reported to be associated with metastases. Presented are 2 cases, both of which showed micrometastatic carcinoma in axillary lymph nodes; neither demonstrated stromal invasion. Nearly complete absence of a myoepithelial cell layer around the periphery of the lesions was noted. One case showed 3 separate foci of micrometastatic carcinoma in 1 of 3 sentinel lymph nodes; the second showed micrometastases in 2 of 11 axillary lymph nodes. The clinical significance of micrometastases in lymph nodes associated with intracystic papillary carcinoma is unknown. The term encapsulated papillary carcinoma has been proposed to name papillary carcinomas that are surrounded by a fibrous rim, but which show a scant or absent myoepithelial cell component. The current 2 cases offer evidence to support the use of this term for particularly large encysted lesions. Sentinel lymph node biopsy may be prudent in such cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations112
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207