MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402433593 · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbae041

Secretory Carcinoma of the Breast: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

2024· review· en· W4402433593 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela Boustros, Lilia Sánchez, Louis Gaboury, Mona El Khoury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Breast Imaging · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymph nodeMedicineBreast carcinomaCarcinomaPleomorphism (cytology)PathologyBreast cancerHistopathologyPopulationOncologyInternal medicineCancerImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secretory carcinoma is a rare, low-grade, special histological type of invasive breast carcinoma. Although it is the most common primary breast cancer in the pediatric population, most cases are diagnosed in adults, with a median age of 48 years (range 3 to 91 years). It most often presents as a painless and slowly growing palpable lump. Imaging findings are nonspecific. Secretory carcinomas have abundant periodic acid-Schiff positive intracytoplasmic and extracellular secretions on histopathology. Nearly all secretory carcinomas have mild to moderate nuclear pleomorphism with low mitotic activity. Over 80% (86/102) of secretory carcinomas display the translocation of t(12;15)(p13;q25), resulting in ETV6::NTRK3 gene fusion. Secretory carcinoma generally has an indolent course and has a better prognosis and overall survival than invasive breast carcinoma of no special type. A good prognosis is associated with age <20 years, tumor size <2 cm, and ≤3 axillary lymph node metastases. Metastases beyond the ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes are rare, with the most common sites involving the lung and liver. Except for the potential addition of targeted drug therapy for NTRK fusion-positive tumors, the treatment approach is otherwise similar to invasive breast carcinomas of similar receptor status.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Breast ImagingSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207