Diagnostic Value of Hook Wire Localization Technique for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of hook wire localization biopsy for non-palpable breast lesions which were detected by ultrasonography (USG) or mammography (MMG). METHODS: In this retrospective study, USG or MMG-guided hook wire localization technique was performed on 83 patients who had non-palpable breast lesions. Then histopathological examination was performed on surgically removed specimens. All patients' mammograms or ultrasonograms were categorized using Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. RESULTS: Radiologically, 27 (32.53%) patients were classified as BI-RADS 3, 49 (59.04%) BI-RADS 4, one (1.2%) BIRADS 5 and six (7.23%) BI-RADS 0. Histopathological results were benign in 68 (81.9%) and malignant in 15 (18.1%) patients. Twenty-seven patients were classified as BI-RADS 3 and definitive diagnoses for all were benign. Besides, 49 patients were classified as BI-RADS 4 and histopathologically 14 of them were reported as malignant, and 35 as benign. Sensitivity of MMG was 93% and specificity was 55%. For USG, the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 73%. CONCLUSION: In early diagnosis of breast cancer, the validity of the imaging-guided hook wire localization biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions has been proved. The cooperation of surgeon, radiologist and pathologist increases the successfull results of hook wire localization technique.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".