Radioactive Seed Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions in a Community Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the positive margin rates for women with nonpalpable breast tumors whom had wire localization compared to radioactive seed localization in a small community hospital.Introduction: Wire localized (WL) breast biopsies have been performed on patients with nonpalpable breast lesions for many years. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) offers advantages of patient comfort and scheduling convenience.There is an extensive literature from large centers regarding the RSL technique. Little is known whether physicians performing these procedures in smaller community hospitals can achieve comparable negative margin rates as those performed with wire localization.Methods: The thirty-six patients who underwent wire localized breast conserving surgery between September 18, 2013 and December 10, 2014, were compared to the 48 radioactive seed localization patients resected between February 12, 2014 and December 18, 2014. The primary objective was to determine if the introduction of the radioactive seed localization technique significantly changed the positive margin rate.Results: Two of 36 wire localized breast biopsied patients had positive margins, compared to 5 of 48 radioactive seed localization patients, a difference which is not statistically different. The specimen weight was larger for the patients treated with the RSL technique. There was a trend toward a higher positive margin rate with older patients.Conclusion: The positive margin rate was similar between the wire localized and radioactive seed localized patients, and comparable to those in the published literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".