Imaging in breast cancer: Single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although mammography remains a key imaging method for the early detection and screening of breast cancer, the overall accuracy of this test remains low. Several radiopharmaceuticals have been proposed as adjunct imaging methods to characterize breast masses by single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron-emission tomography (PET). Useful in characterizing indeterminate palpable masses and in the detection of axillary metastases, these techniques are insufficiently sensitive to detect subcentimetric tumor deposits. Their role in staging nodal involvement of the axillary areas therefore currently remains limited. Several enzymes and receptors have been targeted for imaging breast cancers with PET. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose is particularly useful in the detection and staging of recurrent breast cancer and in assessing the response to chemotherapy. Several other ligands targeting proliferative activity, protein synthesis, and hormone and cell-membrane receptors may complement this approach by providing unique information about biological characteristics of breast cancer across primary and metastatic tumor sites.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".