Initial Community Hospital Performance of Radioactive Seed Localization for Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the positive margin rates for women with nonpalpable breast tumors who underwent breast conserving surgery with wire localization versus those with radioactive seed localization in a small community hospital and to compare the size of the corresponding breast specimens.Introduction: Wire localization (WL) has been the standard technique to assist in the removal of nonpalpable breast tumors for the past three decades for patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is an alternative technique that provides advantages of patient comfort and scheduling convenience. There are numerous studies from large academic centers, but little information on how successfully this technique can be implemented in community hospitals.Methods: Thirty-five patients who underwent WL between September 18, 2013 and December 10, 2014 were compared to 110 patients who underwent RSL between February 12, 2014 and December 16, 2015. Results: Three of the 35 WL patients (8.5%) had a positive margin compared to 14 of the 110 RSL patients (12.7%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p-value 0.763). The breast specimen weight had a geometric mean of 30.26 g for the WL patients and 32.78 g for the RSL patients, a difference of 8.3%, which was not statistically significant. Positive margin rates did not depend on the surgeon or the radiologist placing the I-125 localization seed.Conclusion: The RSL technique can be implemented in community hospitals with the expectation of having the same positive margin rates as reported from academic centers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".