MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382984043 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30070463

Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline

2023· article· en· W4382984043 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Derek Muradali, Glenn G. Fletcher, Erin Cordeiro, Samantha Fienberg, Ralph George, Supriya Kulkarni, Jean M. Seely, Rola Shaheen, Andrea Eisen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreOttawa HospitalQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCancer Care OntarioMinistry of Health, Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineMagnetic resonance imagingBreast cancerClinical PracticeCancerHealth careMedical physicsFamily medicineRadiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after the diagnosis of breast cancer by mammography and/or ultrasound is inconsistent. METHODS: After conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing preoperative breast MRI versus no MRI, we reconvened to prepare a clinical practice guideline on this topic. RESULTS: Based on the evidence that MRI improved recurrence, decreased the rates of reoperations (re-excisions or conversion mastectomy), and increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancer, we recommend that preoperative breast MRI should be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients diagnosed with breast cancer for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. Based on stronger evidence, preoperative breast MRI is recommended in patients diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. For both recommendations, the decision to proceed with MRI would be conditional on shared decision-making between care providers and the patient, taking into account the benefits and risks of MRI as well as patient preferences. Based on the opinion of the Working Group, preoperative breast MRI is also recommended in the following more specific situations: (a) to aid in surgical planning of breast conserving surgery in patients with suspected or known multicentric or multifocal disease; (b) to identify additional lesions in patients with dense breasts; (c) to determine the presence of pectoralis major muscle/chest wall invasion in patients with posteriorly located tumours or when invasion of the pectoralis major muscle or chest wall is suspected; (d) to aid in surgical planning for skin/nipple-sparing mastectomies, autologous reconstruction, oncoplastic surgery, and breast conserving surgery with suspected nipple/areolar involvement; and (e) in patients with familial/hereditary breast cancer but who have not had recent breast MRI as part of screening or diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207