Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".