Location and Extent of Positive Resection Margins and Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in Lumpectomy Specimens of Ductal Breast Carcinoma Examined with a Microscopic Three-Dimensional View
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The location of positive margins in lumpectomy specimens for ductal carcinoma could be predicted due to the common pattern of the geographic relationship between the intraductal and invasive carcinomas. To test this hypothesis, 62 lumpectomy specimens for ductal carcinoma of the breast were submitted for this study. The specimens were microscopically examined by serially sectioning them into giant sections in a plane parallel to the chest wall (frontal plane). The margins were identified as proximal (closest to the nipple), distal (opposite to proximal), and peripheral (nonproximal or distal). We found that the location of positive or close margins was proximal in 6 cases, peripheral in 13 cases, and none were found to be distal. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was found to be located in the area adjacent to the invasive carcinoma. The invasive carcinoma was located at the periphery of the intraductal carcinoma. All six specimens with invasive carcinoma without DCIS had free margins. Nine of 16 specimens (56%) with extensive intraductal carcinoma (EIC) component and 7 of 40 (18%) with DCIS but negative EIC contained positive or close margins involved by DCIS. One case with multifocal invasive carcinoma measuring 3.5 cm in diameter and with DCIS but EIC negative had margins involved by both DCIS and invasive carcinoma. In conclusion, in ductal carcinoma, invasive carcinoma arose at the peripheral areas of the DCIS. DCIS tends to spread toward the nipple and the peripheral margins of the resected specimens. Incomplete excision of the ductal carcinoma and the wide positive margins are most likely caused by the failure to estimate the extent and location of DCIS.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it