MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Case report of a 27-year-old male with DCIS

2009· article· en· W2243310500 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Hamm, Christopher J. Coroneos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMale Breast Health Studies
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecomastiaMedicineMale breast cancerFamily historyMalignancyPopulationBreast enlargementBreast cancerDuctal carcinomaCancerMastectomyGynecologyGenetic testingInternal medicineOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e11635 DCIS in a young male is rarely reported. Our patient is a 25 year old male who presented with symptomatic unilateral gynecomastia. He presented with a strong family history of cancer on both maternal and paternal sides of his family including breast, lung (maternal) and melanoma, colon and pancreatic (paternal). His mother tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2. There is no information on the paternal genetic testing. He was treated with left subcutaneous mastectomy. Upon histologic review of the sample, concurrent gyecomastia and ductal carcinoma in situ was discovered. To date, only four cases of gynecomastia and DCIS have been described in younger male patients. Since only 30 - 50% of patients with DCIS eventually develop invasive cancer in the subsequent 10 - 20 years, this figure in the general population may be higher. This case underscores the importance of family history in any patient presenting with a breast mass. Patients must be made aware of the risk, however small it may be and physicians must remain cautious of malignancy in young males with gynecomastia. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMale Breast Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207