MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407538000 · doi:10.1038/s41523-025-00720-3

A pooled analysis evaluating prognostic significance of Residual Cancer Burden in invasive lobular breast cancer

2025· article· en· W4407538000 on OpenAlexaff
Rita A. Mukhtar, Soumya Gottipati, Christina Yau, Sara López‐Tarruella, Helena Earl, Larry Hayward, Louise Hiller, Marie Osdoit, Marieke van der Noordaa, Diane De Croze, Anne‐Sophie Hamy, Marick Laé, Fabien Reyal, Gabe S. Sonke, Tessa G. Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, Miguel Martín, Marı́a del Monte-Millán, Judy C. Boughey, Matthew P. Goetz, Tanya L. Hoskin, Vicente Valero, Stephen B. Edge, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Janet Dunn, Elena Provenzano, Stephen‐John Sammut, Jeremy Thomas, A Graham, Peter S Hall, Lorna Mackintosh, Fang Fan, Andrew K. Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Mi‐Ok Kim, Laura van ‘t Veer, David Cameron, Laura J. Esserman, W. Fraser Symmans

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Breast Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsInvasive lobular carcinomaBreast cancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancerCohortInvasive ductal carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is validated to predict event-free survival (EFS) in breast cancer but has not been studied for invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). We studied patient-level data from a pooled cohort across 12 institutions. Associations between RCB index, class, and EFS were assessed in ILC and non-ILC with mixed effect Cox models and multivariable analyses. Recursive partitioning was used in an exploratory model to stratify prognosis by RCB components. Of 5106 patients, the diagnosis was ILC in 216 and non-ILC in 4890. Increased RCB index was associated with worse EFS in both ILC and non-ILC (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively) and remained prognostic when stratified by receptor subtype and adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status. Recursive partitioning demonstrated residual invasive cancer cellularity as most prognostic in ILC. These results underscore the utility of RCB for evaluating NAC response in those with ILC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Breast CancerSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207