MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200174988 · doi:10.14740/wjon1418

Management of Male Breast Cancer: The Journey so Far and Future Directions

2021· review· en· W4200174988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Quratulain Sabih, Jessica Young, Kazuaki Takabe

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMale Breast Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthRoswell Park Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMale breast cancerCancerRadiation therapyDiseaseRandomized controlled trialOncologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male breast cancer is now shown to be a unique entity and should be considered as a distinct disease. Given the relatively smaller number of cases, randomized controlled trials for treatment are extremely limited and majority of practices are derived from female breast cancer studies. This paper reviews available literature on surgical, radiation, and systemic therapies for male breast cancer, and discusses current practice recommendations.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicMale Breast Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207