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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Samuel Ogunbiyi, Andrew Perry, Kiran Jakate, Jory S. Simpson, Ralph George

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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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