MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883994816 · doi:10.5152/ejbh.2018.3871

Breast Infection: A Review of Diagnosis and Management Practices

2018· review· en· W2883994816 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Breast Health · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralIncision and drainageGuidelineMastitisIntensive care medicineAbscessGeneral surgerySurgeryNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mastitis is a common condition that predominates during the puerperium. Breast abscesses are less common, however when they do develop, delays in specialist referral may occur due to lack of clear protocols. In secondary care abscesses can be diagnosed by ultrasound scan and in the past the management has been dependent on the receiving surgeon. Management options include aspiration under local anesthetic or more invasive incision and drainage (I&D). Over recent years the availability of bedside/clinic based ultrasound scan has made diagnosis easier and minimally invasive procedures have become the cornerstone of breast abscess management. We review the diagnosis and management of breast infection in the primary and secondary care setting, highlighting the importance of early referral for severe infection/breast abscesses. As a clear guideline on the management of breast infection is lacking, this review provides useful guidance for those who rarely see breast infection to help avoid long-term morbidity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.297 · 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