MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912580251 · doi:10.1503/cjs.005718

Phyllodes tumour of the breast and margins: How much is enough?

2019· review· en· W2912580251 on OpenAlex
Samuel Ogunbiyi, Andrew Perry, Kiran Jakate, Jory S. Simpson, Ralph George

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumpectomyMargin (machine learning)Breast tumoursPhyllodes tumorSurgical marginMastectomySurgical excisionLesionWide local excisionGeneral surgeryRadiologySurgeryResectionBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Phyllodes breast tumours are fairly uncommon, and they can be benign, borderline or malignant. General surgeons usually encounter them following the surgical excision of a breast lump that had the appearance of a fibroepithelial lesion. The surgeon is then faced with the question of what to do to establish an acceptable treatment margin. In this discussion, we recommend a plan for the management of Phyllodes tumours based on a review of the recent literature, confirmed by a retrospective review of the results from our centre. A negative margin is acceptable treatment following a lumpectomy for Phyllodes tumours. Only patients with a positive margin should undergo a revision.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.176 · 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