Prognostic significance of residual nodal disease after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive 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
Axillary management after NET has not been well studied and the significance of residual axillary node disease after NET remains uncertain. We used the National Cancer Data Base to examine the prognostic significance of residual nodal disease after NET. From 2010-2016, 4,496 patients received NET for cT1-3N0-1M0 hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Among cN0 patients treated with NET, final node status was ypN0 in 65%, isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in 3%, ypN1mi in 6%, and ypN1 in 26%. In cN1 patients, nodal pathologic complete response was uncommon (10%), and residual nodal disease included ITCs in 1%, ypN1mi in 3%, and ypN1 in 86%. There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients with pathologic node-negative disease, ITCs, or micrometastases after NET. When compared to a matched cohort of upfront surgery patients, there were also no differences in 5-year OS between NET and upfront surgery patients for any residual nodal disease category. These findings suggest NET patient outcomes mirror those of upfront surgery patients and present an opportunity to consider de-escalation of axillary management strategies in NET patients.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it