MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901295284 · doi:10.1503/cjs.017617

Surgical management of benign phyllodes tumours of the breast: Is wide local excision really necessary?

2018· article· en· W2901295284 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yiming Qian, May Lynn Quan, Travis Ogilvi, Antoine Bouchard‐Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineBreast tumoursCore biopsyWide local excisionSurgical excisionBiopsyPhyllodes tumorMargin (machine learning)FibroadenomaGeneral surgeryRadiologyBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Current guidelines recommending wide local excision (≥ 1 cm margin) for all breast phyllodes tumours regardless of classification are based on retrospective data. Benign phyllodes tumours of the breast are not aggressive. They are often indistinguishable from fibroadenomas on core biopsy and are diagnosed only after excisions without attention to margins. Once the diagnosis is made, the decision to operate and obtain further margins versus wait-and-watch is the dilemma breast surgeons face on a regular basis.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207