MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567689439 · doi:10.3390/cancers9010001

Retroareolar Carcinomas in Breast Ultrasound: Pearls and Pitfalls

2016· review· en· W2567689439 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreRoyal Victoria HospitalThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast Ultrasound (US) is an important tool for both screening and diagnostic examinations. Although breast US has benefitted from significant recent technical improvements, its use for the retroareolar region is known to be more challenging than for other locations. The retroareolar location was defined by Giess et al. in 1998 as the region where any lesion is situated at less than two cm from the nipple and/or involves the nipple-areolar complex on mammogram. Understanding of the complex anatomy and physiology of the nipple-areolar region is important to avoid misinterpretation and misdiagnosis. The ability for the breast imager to manage difficulties related to the retroareolar area is paramount by adjusting settings (compounding, frequency, Doppler) and utilizing specific manoeuvers. Cases illustrating difficulties encountered in diagnosis of retroareolar carcinomas are presented.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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