MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107486548 · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.5265

Flat Epithelial Atypia of the Breast: Pathological-Radiological Correlation

2011· article· en· W2107486548 on OpenAlexaff
Silma Solorzano, Benoı̂t Mesurolle, Attila Omeroglu, Mona El Khoury, Ellen Kao, Ann Aldis, Sarkis Meterissian

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtypiaRadiologyLobular carcinomaNuclear atypiaPathologyCarcinomaBreast cancerDuctal carcinomaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of flat epithelial atypia at ultrasound-guided and stereotactically guided needle biopsies, to describe the mammographic and sonographic features of flat epithelial atypia, and to determine the significance of lesions diagnosed as flat epithelial atypia at imaging-guided needle biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of a database of 1369 consecutive sonographically and stereotactically guided needle biopsies performed during a 12-month period yielded 33 lesions with flat epithelial atypia as the most severe pathologic entity (32 patients). Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed the imaging presentation, by combined consensus, according to the BI-RADS lexicon. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 33 flat epithelial atypia diagnoses (67%) were obtained under stereotactic guidance, and 11 (33%) were obtained under sonographic guidance. Six patients had synchronous breast cancer. Flat epithelial atypia lesions presented mammographically most often as microcalcifications (20/33 [61%]) distributed in a cluster (14/20 [70%]) with amorphous morphology (13/20 [65%]). Sonographically, flat epithelial atypia lesions appeared most often as masses (9/11 [82%]), with an irregular shape (6/9 [67%]), microlobulated margins (5/9 [56%]), and hypoechoic or complex echotexture (7/9 [78%]). Twenty-eight of 33 lesions (85%) were surgically excised, confirming the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis in 11 of the 28 lesions (39%), yielding carcinoma in four (14%) and atypical ductal hyperplasia in six (21%). Columnar cell changes without atypia were diagnosed in four lesions (14%), and lobular carcinoma in situ was diagnosed in three lesions (11%). CONCLUSION: Mammographic and sonographic presentation of flat epithelial atypia is not specific (clustered amorphous microcalcifications and irregular, hypoechoic or complex masses). Given the underestimation rate of malignancy, surgical excision should be considered when imaging-guided biopsy yields flat epithelial atypia.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RoentgenologySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207