MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006567024 · doi:10.5430/jst.v10n1p17

Invasive papillary ductal carcinoma of the breast: A case report

2020· article· en· W3006567024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amani S Hadi, Gamal Abdul Hamid, Refaat Al-Areqee, Wafa Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistopathologyMedicineDuctal carcinomaPathologyBiopsyMastectomyBreast cancerCarcinomaRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general rate of intrusive papillary carcinoma (IPC) is uncommon, representing for less than 1-2 % of invasive breast cancers. They are most generally observed in postmenposal females and uncommon in males. Invasive papillary carcinomas are low grade tumors originating from large or dilated ducts. They are make out of all around outlined solid nodules of monotones neoplastic cell separated by network of fibrovascular cores, IPC is a remarkable sort of breast cancer and regarded of whether it is in-situ or invasive, it has brilliant prognosis. We presenting two cases of invasive papillary carcinoma in male and female; A case of 55years postmenoposal female who presented with history of left breast mass, which this mass notice after trauma same site for 1 year ago the mass gradually increase in size no tenderness, no signs of inflammation. Excisional biopsy was performed and specimen was histopathology diagnosed as invasive papillary carcinoma, left MRM was performed and histopathology diagnosis confirmed and without residual tumor seen in submitted slides and all submitted lymph nodes were free of tumor infiltration (0/14). IHC show ER and PR negative with HER-2 positive. The second case 70 years male presented with right breast mass and history of post-trauma since one year back with gradual increase in size, right radical mastectomy done and histopathology diagnosed as invasive papillary carcinoma, IHC was done ER and PR positive with HER2- negative.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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