Borderline Phyllodes Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Review of Recurrence, Histopathological Characteristics, and Treatment Modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phyllodes tumors account for 2-3% of all fibroepithelial breast tumors and less than 1% of all breast cancers. These tumors are categorized into benign, borderline, or malignant based on cellular atypia, mitotic activity, and stromal overgrowth. Surgical excision with clear margins, ideally greater than 1 cm, is the primary treatment for phyllodes tumors to ensure effective local control. Preoperative diagnosis is challenging due to the clinical and radiological similarities between phyllodes tumors and fibroadenomas. The efficacy and role of adjuvant treatments remain subjects of ongoing debate and investigation. Borderline phyllodes tumors exhibit biological characteristics that straddle the line between benign and malignant, presenting significant clinical and surgical management challenges. Given the rarity of this specific subgroup and the ambiguity of the risk of recurrence or progression to malignant phyllodes, this narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the recurrence risk associated with these tumors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".