The Use of Machine Learning to Reduce Overtreatment of the Axilla in Breast Cancer: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with early breast cancer undergoing primary surgery, who have low axillary nodal burden, can safely forego axillary node clearance (ANC). However, routine use of axillary ultrasound (AUS) leads to 43% of patients in this group having ANC unnecessarily, following a positive AUS. The intersection of machine learning with medicine can provide innovative ways to understand specific risks within large patient data sets, but this has not yet been trialed in the arena of axillary node management in breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess if machine learning techniques could be used to improve preoperative identification of patients with low and high axillary metastatic burden. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was performed on patients with breast cancer who had a preoperative AUS, and the specificity and sensitivity of AUS were calculated. Standard statistical methods and machine learning methods, including artificial neural network, naive Bayes, support vector machine, and random forest, were applied to the data to see if they could improve the accuracy of preoperative AUS to better discern high and low axillary burden. RESULTS: The study included 459 patients; 142 (31%) had a positive AUS; among this group, 88 (62%) had 2 or fewer macrometastatic nodes at ANC. Logistic regression outperformed AUS (specificity 0.950 vs 0.809). Of all the methods, the artificial neural network had the highest accuracy (0.919). Interestingly, AUS had the highest sensitivity of all methods (0.777), underlining its utility in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that machine learning improves identification of the important subgroup of patients with no palpable axillary disease, positive ultrasound, and more than 2 metastatically involved nodes. A negative ultrasound in patients with no palpable lymphadenopathy is highly indicative of low axillary burden, and it is unclear whether sentinel node biopsy adds value in this situation. Further studies with larger patient numbers focusing on specific breast cancer subgroups are required to refine these techniques in this setting.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".