Delayed presentation, diagnosis, and psychosocial aspects of male breast cancer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Male breast cancer is uncommon, delay in seeking medical attention often results in late presentation and poor prognosis. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Patients who were still having regular follow-up were contacted for telephone interview. RESULTS: In this study, 56 male breast cancer patients were treated in our center from January 1998 to December 2018, accounting for 0.88% of all breast cancers treated during the same period of time. Median age of onset was 61 years old (Range: 33-95). In this study, 6 (10.7%) patients presented with distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis and received palliative systemic treatment only. And, 50 patients were surgically treated and all had mastectomy. Axillary dissection was performed in 36 (72%) patients, while sentinel node biopsy was performed in 14 (28%) patients. Median tumor size was 23 mm (2-100 mm). A Majority were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma (NOS), while 38 (67.8%) patients were node positive.Here 36 (64.3%) patients were alive at the time of the study, 31 (86.1%) patients responded to the telephone interview. More than 90% of our patients expressed various degrees of embarrassment at the time of breast symptom onset. Similarly, more than 90% of these patients experienced embarrassment while waiting in the breast center with predominant female patients. Most patients (N = 26) were not aware that breast cancer can occur in men prior to the diagnosis. Median duration from symptoms to the first medical consultation was 12.4 months (1-120 months). CONCLUSION: Male breast cancer is rare and patients usually present late, Lack of knowledge, public education, and embarrassment are the important related factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it