Long-term outcome in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a western multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the presentation, disease course and long-term outcome of a western cohort of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) and to analyse the impact of different therapeutic strategies. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective study of 23 women followed over an extended period. Patients were recruited in nine French internal medicine departments. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6 years. IGM presented commonly as a single inflammatory unilateral extra-areolar lump of varying size. Clinical course was heterogeneous and frequently remitting/relapsing. Most patients had at least one recurrence (18/23, 78%). The mean number of recurrences was 1.3 ± 1.5. Seven women had a bilateral evolution. Twelve women received steroids (corticosteroids). Only two of these did not respond to corticosteroids, whereas six relapsed when dose was tapered off. Nine patients received colchicine and/or hydroxychloroquine. First-line treatment consisted of excisional surgery in eight cases. At the date of last interview, 91% of the patients declared to be healed, 15 being free of treatment. However, 12/21 (57%) reported significant sequelae (unsightly scars: eight and/or lasting pain: six). Unsightly scars were not more prevalent in patients who had received steroids whereas they tended to be more frequent after breast excisional surgery. In addition, we found that excisional surgery did not prevent recurrences more successfully than a conservative approach. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its retrospective nature, this Caucasian series provides novel information regarding long-term outcomes in IGM and argues in favour of conservative approaches. The value of immunomodulatory drugs such as colchicine or hydroxychloroquine deserves further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".