Characteristics and long‐term survival of patients diagnosed with pure tubular carcinoma of the breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pure tubular carcinomas (TC) of the breast are generally considered to have an excellent prognosis. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics and survival of patients with TC. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval. Databases were searched for all cases treated between April 1997 and December 2010. Survival was retrieved from the Province of Quebec Ministry of Health. Follow-up was censored on December 31, 2011. Overall survival (OS) was compared to patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (ICD) matched for age, tumor size, lymph node involvement, year of diagnosis, ER, PgR, and HER2, histological grade, lymphovascular invasion, and chemotherapy. RESULTS: The frequency of TC was 2.9% (n = 223/7563). Tumors size was 7.4 ± 8.8 mm, without lymphovascular invasion (95.1%), ER-positive (98.2%), PgR-positive (69.5%), and HER2-negative (100%). Patients were followed up for 7.1 ± 2.7 years. The actuarial 13-year OS was 89.0% for TC, compared to 85.8% for IDC (P = 0.13). For TC, the 13-year OS was 95.8% in NO patients compared to 90.0% for N1-3 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the general popular belief that patients with TC fare better than patients with IDC, the 13-year OS of TC was similar to that of grade I IDC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".