Endosalpingiosis in Axillary Lymph Nodes Simulating Metastatic Breast Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes at time of surgical excision of primary breast carcinoma is a crucial step in the determination of cancer extent and the need for further axillary dissection. Benign epithelial inclusions in axillary lymph nodes can mimic metastatic carcinoma and are a well-known pitfall during examination of these nodes in frozen or permanent sections. Most often, these inclusions consists of heterotopic mammary glands and are familiar to the practicing pathologist. Here, however, we present a rare case of endosalpingiosis in the axillary lymph nodes of a breast cancer patient and describe our experience and effort to characterize the lesion. Simulating a metastatic focus of invasive ductal carcinoma, the glandular inclusions lacked myoepithelial cells and failed to stain with myoepithelial markers. However, consistent with a Mullerian origin, the inclusions demonstrated strong staining with PAX-8 and WT-1. Although endosalpingiotic inclusions are not uncommonly encountered in subdiaphragmatic lymph nodes, they are an extremely rare finding above the diaphragm. Pathologists must be aware of these lesions and their ability to imitate metastatic gland-forming carcinoma during frozen section or permanent examination of axillary lymph nodes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".