MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793964365 · doi:10.5430/jst.v8n1p42

Comparative sonographic review of benign and malignant breast masses

2018· article· en· W2793964365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Moyosore Afodun, Eze E D, Khadijah Kofoworola Quadri, Auwalu Muhammed, Mustapha Akajewole Masud, S K Lawal, Muhammad Olanrewaju Buhari, T O Ayinde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibroadenomaEchogenicityDifferential diagnosisBreast cancerRadiologyMastitisBiopsyMammographyUltrasoundPathologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex breast masses may appear as suspicious ultrasound findings that usually warrant biopsy. Ductal cell carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) is a form of breast cancer with a non-uniform appearance and malignant potential. A longitudinal review of mammary gland ultrasound (with high frequency transducer) within a three-year period was conducted. Differential diagnosis of fibroadenoma, lactating adenoma, mastitis, galactocele, breast cancer, abscess and “general” masses greater than 16 mm in diameter was stratified. Based on the breast imaging reporting in data system (BIRADS), lesions were classified as benign or malignant and recommendations of cytology made in cases of observed overlap findings. Image sonomorphologic information on mass-echogenic halo and non-uniform orientation were documented; while malignant factors like scar tissue, focal fibrosis and papillomas may be associated with a false positive (conclusion) result. Doppler studies on further mass evaluation is encouraged.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207