Breast MRI Does Not Help Differentiating Radial Scar With and Without Associated Atypia or Malignancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of radial scar (RS) with and without associated atypia/malignancy. METHODS: Twenty-eight (mean age 56.8) patients diagnosed with 30 biopsy-proven RS (n = 25, ultrasound-guided 14-gauge, n = 5, stereotactically guided 9-gauge) subsequently underwent breast MRI followed by surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging protocol included axial T1, axial fat sat T2, and postgadolinium in axial and sagittal planes. Two radiologists reviewed the mammographic and MRI findings in consensus according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. RESULTS: Of the 30 RSs excised surgically, 14 (14/30, 47.7%) were not associated with atypia/malignancy while atypia/malignancy was found in 16 (16/30, 53.3%) RSs. Three (3/30, 10%) RS lesions did not enhance on dynamic MR. Mean lesion size on MRI was 1.4 cm (range, 0.5-5 cm). Seventeen (17/30, 56.7%) lesions presented as nonmass enhancement and 9 (9/30, 30%) as masses. Nonmass lesions showed focal distribution (13/17, 76.5%) and heterogeneous enhancement (15/17, 88.2%). Masses showed irregular shape and margins (6/9, 67%) and heterogeneous enhancement (8/9, 89%). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference in MRI presentation between RS only and RS associated with atypia/malignancy. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI does not help differentiate between RS with or without associated atypia/malignancy.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".