MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2437091439 · doi:10.1002/cncr.30118

Breast intraductal papillomas without atypia in radiologic‐pathologic concordant core‐needle biopsies: Rate of upgrade to carcinoma at excision

2016· article· en· W2437091439 on OpenAlexaff
Fresia Pareja, Adriana Corben, Sandra Brennan, Melissa P. Murray, Zenica L. Bowser, Kiran Jakate, Christopher Sebastiano, Monica Morrow, Elizabeth A. Morris, Edi Brogi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineAtypiaConcordanceIntraductal papillomaPapillomaDuctal carcinomaBiopsyRadiologyBreast cancerCarcinomaCancerLobular carcinomaCarcinoma in situPopulationPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of mammary intraductal papilloma without atypia (IDP) identified at core-needle biopsy (CNB) is controversial. This study assessed the rate of upgrade to carcinoma at surgical excision (EXC). METHODS: This study identified women with a CNB diagnosis of intraductal papilloma without atypia or carcinoma at a cancer center between 2003 and 2013. Radiologic-pathologic concordance was assessed for all cases, and discordant cases were excluded. The radiologic and clinicopathologic features of patients with a CNB diagnosis of IDP were correlated with an upgrade to carcinoma at EXC. RESULTS: The study population consists of 189 women with 196 IDPs; 166 women (171 IDPs) underwent EXC. The upgrade rate was 2.3% (4 of 171). The upgraded lesions were 2 invasive lobular carcinomas and 2 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One case of DCIS involved the residual IDP, whereas the other 3 carcinomas were ≥ 8 mm away. Twenty-four women (25 IDPs) did not undergo EXC and had stable imaging on follow-up (median, 23.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: The upgrade rate at EXC for IDPs diagnosed at CNB with radiologic-pathologic concordance was 2.3%. These findings suggest that observation is appropriate for patients with radiologic-pathologic concordant CNB yielding IDP, regardless of its size. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2819-2827. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations94
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207