MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385329567 · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbad022

Malignant Adenomyoepithelioma of the Breast

2023· article· en· W4385329567 on OpenAlexaff
Nanxi Zha, Ameya Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Breast Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 59-year-old woman underwent a CT pulmonary angiogram, which detected an incidental left breast mass (Figure 1). When she presented for her formal breast assessment appointment, the mass was palpable to the patient. Her mammogram demonstrated a partially obscured mass in the outer breast along the posterior nipple line, which was new compared to her screening mammograms from one year prior (Figure 2). A sonographic correlate consisting of an irregular hypoechoic mass was found (Figure 3). There was no axillary lymphadenopathy. Given the suspicious imaging characteristics, the mass was evaluated as BI-RADS 5, for which US-guided biopsy was performed. Pathology revealed intraductal proliferation composed of benign-appearing tubules and rounded structures with an intraductal cellular proliferation, favored to represent an adenomyoepithelioma. Surgical excision was recommended to confirm the diagnosis and exclude other possible differential diagnoses, including invasive breast malignancy. The patient underwent a preoperative MRI examination, which confirmed the enhancing mass without any additional focus of disease (Figure 4). The patient underwent lumpectomy with pathology showing adenomyoepithelioma with malignant transformation (characterized by increased mitotic activity) and positive margins. The patient completed a re-excision to achieve negative margins. She also underwent a staging CT, which showed no metastatic disease within in the chest, abdomen, or pelvis.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Breast ImagingSame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207