Molecular Classification of Infiltrating Breast Cancer: Toward Personalized Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, which comprises several molecular and genetic subtypes, each with characteristic clinicobiologic behavior and imaging patterns. Traditional classification of breast cancer is based on the histopathologic features but offers limited prognostic value. Novel molecular characterization of breast cancer with cellular markers has allowed a new classification that offers prognostic value, with predictive categories of disease aggressiveness. These molecular signatures also open the door to personalized therapeutic options, with new receptor-targeted therapies. For example, invasive cancer subtypes such as the luminal A and B subtypes show better prognosis and response to hormone receptor-targeted therapies compared with the triple-negative subtypes; on the other hand, triple-negative tumors respond better than luminal tumors to chemotherapy. Tumors that display amplification of the oncogene ERBB2 (also known as the HER2/neu oncogene) respond to drugs directed against this oncogene, such as trastuzumab. The imaging aspects of tumors correlate with molecular subgroups, as well as other pathologic features such as nuclear grade. Smooth tumor margins at mammography may be suggestive of a triple-negative breast cancer, and a human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumor is characteristically a spiculated mass with calcifications. Low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is better detected with mammography, although magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may allow better characterization of high-grade DCIS. MR imaging diffusion sequences show higher values for the apparent diffusion coefficient for triple-negative and HER2-positive subtypes, compared with luminal A and B tumors. MR imaging is also a useful tool in the prediction of tumor response after chemotherapy, especially for triple-negative and HER2-positive subtypes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".