Comparative Evaluation of Iodine-125 Radioactive Seed Localization and Wire Localization for Resection of Breast Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radioactive seed localization (RSL) uses a titanium seed labeled with iodine-125 energy for surgery of nonpalpable breast lesions. RSL facilitates radiology-surgery scheduling and allows for improved oncoplasty compared with wire localization (WL). The purpose of this work was to compare the 2 techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all breast lesions operated with RSL between February 2013 and March 2015 at our university institution, and compared with an equivalent number of surgeries performed with a single WL. Imaging and pathology reports were reviewed for information on guidance mode, accuracy of targeting, nature of excised lesion, size and volume of surgical specimen, status of margins, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 254 lesions (247 women) were excised with RSL and compared with 257 lesions (244 women) whose surgery was guided by WL. Both groups were comparable in lesion pathology, guidance mode for RSL or WL positioning, and accuracy of targeting (98% correct). Mean delay between biopsy and surgery was 84 days for RSL versus 103 after WL (P = .04). No differences were noted after RSL or WL for surgical specimen mean weight, largest diameter, and volume excised. For malignancies, the rate of positive margins was comparable (2.8%-3%), with 5 of 10 women in the RSL group who underwent a second surgery displaying residual malignancy compared with 3 of 9 women in the WL group. CONCLUSIONS: RSL is safe and accurate, and has comparable surgical endpoints to WL. Because RSL offers flexible scheduling and facilitated oncoplasty, RSL may replace WL for resection of nonpalpable single breast lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".