MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112526671 · doi:10.4021/wjon2010.01.1206

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer

2010· review· en· W2112526671 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vijaya Mysorekar

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSentinel lymph nodeBiopsyLymph nodeRadiologyOncologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The axillary lymph node status is the most reliable prognostic indicator of recurrence and overall survival in patients with breast cancer. The current standard surgical procedure for the management of invasive breast cancer is the complete removal of the cancer with total axillary clearance. However, recently, selective sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy is gaining acceptance as a useful and accurate staging procedure, as it is minimally invasive. The sentinel lymph node is the first node into which a primary cancer drains, and is thus the first node to be involved by metastases. Patients whose sentinel nodes are negative for breast cancer metastases, can be spared a more extensive axillary lymph node dissection, with reduction in the postoperative morbidity. Sentinel node mapping is usually performed by intradermal or peritumoral injection of a combination of blue dye and radiotracer. Sentinel node examination is sometimes done intraoperatively, by imprint cytology and frozen sections, for an immediate assessment, to plan the extent of surgery at a single sitting. Permanent sections of the sentinel node are studied by serial sectioning, and immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin is done to detect micrometastases which are frequently missed on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained sections. The various aspects of sentinel node examination, and its role to decide further management in patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ, and in other clinical settings, are discussed in this review.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207