The Use of Ultrasound for Breast Pain in a Newfoundland Cohort Article Sidebar
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective Breast pain is a common complaint for which ultrasound is often used for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine the number and outcome of breast ultrasounds conducted in patients having breast pain with no other associated clinical features. Method All patients who underwent breast ultrasound for breast pain at a local hospital from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 were identified. The result of each ultrasound was recorded along with variables such as clinical features (palpable lump, nipple discharge, and skin dimpling), age, sex, pain characteristics, menopausal status, and family/personal history of breast cancer. Results A total of 1660 ultrasounds (12.8%) for breast pain were performed at a local hospital center, accounting for 12.8% of the total breast ultrasounds done during the stated period. The age range of the patients was 17–91 years, with a mean age of 45.4 years and standard deviation (SD) being 15 years. Most of the patients had no clinical findings associated with their pain (64%). More abnormal ultrasound findings in patients with clinical features (29%) were determined compared to patients with no clinical features (16%). The majority of abnormal ultrasounds in patients with no clinical features were done in patients aged 41–50 years (13.9%), and patients aged >50 years (10.9%). No abnormal findings in patients aged <20 years were detected, and only 15 patients (6.5%) aged 21–30 years with no clinical findings had abnormal ultrasounds. Conclusion Patients aged 17–30 years had the lowest abnormal finding rate, with no cancerous outcomes. These results support the prudent use of breast ultrasound in case of young patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it