Influence of the New AJCC Breast Cancer Staging System on Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity and False-Negative Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sixth and newest edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer now defines axillary sentinel lymph nodes with micrometastatic deposits 0.2 mm in diameter or smaller as node-negative. The aim of this study was to determine how this new classification scheme would affect axillary sentinel lymph node positivity, false-negative rate, and overall accuracy of an inception cohort of 205 breast cancer patients undergoing definitive surgery that included sentinel lymph node biopsy plus level I/II axillary lymphadenectomy. Based on the previous AJCC system for staging breast cancer, in which all sentinel lymph node metastases were considered positive, the rate of nodal positivity in this cohort was 47%, the overall accuracy was 99%, and the false-negative rate was 2.1%. According to the new classification system, the rate of nodal positivity in this cohort was 39.5% and the overall accuracy was 98%. The false-negative rate rose to 4.9% because two patients with micrometastatic deposits 0.2 mm or smaller, which are considered node-negative in the new system, had macroscopically positive disease in non-sentinel lymph nodes found in the completion lymphadenectomy.
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".