MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072471730 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e3181a20cae

The Surgical Management of Granulomatous Mastitis

2009· article· en· W2072471730 on OpenAlexaff
Farrah M. Yau, Sheina A. Macadam, Urve Kuusk, Michael Nimmo, Nancy Van Laeken

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGranulomatous mastitisMastectomySurgeryMammaplastyBiopsyMastitisBreast reconstructionWide local excisionIncision and drainagePresentation (obstetrics)Breast reductionGeneral surgeryBreast cancerRadiologyAbscessCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granulomatous mastitis is an inflammatory breast condition of unknown etiology. Management remains controversial and treatment algorithms are lacking from the literature. Few resources exist that discuss breast reconstruction following extirpation. This descriptive case series reviews the clinicopathologic features of granulomatous mastitis.We describe the surgical management undertaken at our institution including General and Plastic Surgery procedures. Eleven clinical charts and histologic slides of biopsy specimens were reviewed in our health region between 1992 and 2007. Demographic data, clinical presentation, and radiologic findings were tabulated. Treatment consisted of empirical antibiotics and surgical excision. Procedures performed included incision and drainage (n = 8), excisional biopsy (n = 15), partial mastectomy (n = 5), partial mastectomy with reduction mammaplasty (n = 2), and mastectomy with TRAM flap reconstruction (n = 1).Treatment was successful in all but one case. Multiple surgeries for recurrent lesions were often required to achieve final remission. Following extirpation, we recommend delayed breast reconstruction to monitor for recurrence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207