Breast Biopsy: Multicenter Study of Radiofrequency Introducer with US-guided Handheld System—Initial Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of a radiofrequency (RF) introducer in placement and use of a handheld breast biopsy system during ultrasonography (US)-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In three institutions from September 2000 through June 2001, 99 patients were scheduled for US-guided breast biopsy with the handheld system. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo biopsy with the handheld system alone (control group, 50 patients) or with the RF introducer and the handheld system (treatment group, 49 patients). Investigators compared the ability of the radiologist and pathologist to obtain a histologic diagnosis, ease of tissue penetration, procedure time, and pain. Patients assessed their pain level after the procedure and at 1, 7, and 30 days after biopsy. RESULTS: The RF introducer provided easier penetration (treatment group mean score, 1.6; control group, 2.4), particularly in patients with dense breasts (treatment group, 1.0; control group, 2.9) on the basis of a five-point scale (1 = very easy, 5 = extremely difficult). A histologic diagnosis was obtained in all cases, and no RF-induced artifact was reported. Average biopsy procedure time for treatment and control groups was not significantly different. Average patient pain levels were comparable between groups for each evaluation interval. Clinical complications in four treatment patients and three control patients were minor and resolved spontaneously. CONCLUSION: The RF introducer may serve as a useful adjunct to the handheld biopsy system by facilitating penetration of breast tissue without causing any deleterious effects for the patient or the biopsy specimen.
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) | 0.001 | 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".