MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396717419 · doi:10.14740/wjon1844

Diagnosis and Management of Desmoid Fibromatosis of the Breast

2024· article· en· W4396717419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron Kangas‐Dick, M. Ali Al-Radhawi, Mariola Poss, Thaer Khoury, Kazuaki Takabe

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWatchful waitingFibromatosisContext (archaeology)PathologicalDiseaseReferralNatural historyStage (stratigraphy)General surgerySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineCancerFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desmoid fibromatosis of the breast (also known as desmoid tumor of the breast) is a rare entity infrequently encountered by oncologists and surgeons caring for patients with breast disease. The current body of literature is highly reliant on case series and extrapolations from other sites of desmoid tumor-related disease. Much remains unclear regarding the pathological origins, natural history, and response to treatment of this condition. Traditional treatment strategies have centered on surgical resection, which may result in significantly disfiguring cosmetic and functional outcomes, frequent need for re-operation, and associated morbidity. There are limited data to support the superiority of upfront surgical resection when compared to medical therapy or watchful waiting strategies. Current treatment guidelines for desmoid tumors do not focus on the breast as a site of disease and are purposefully ambiguous due to the paucity of evidence available. We aim to review the literature concerning desmoid fibromatosis of the breast and propose an algorithm for current evidence-based management of this rare disease in the context of our experience with this pathology at a high-volume quaternary referral center.

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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207