A retrospective chart review of clinicopathological findings from radiological examination, core biopsies and surgical excisions of breast tumours in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast carcinoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in Canadian women. Effective screening and early diagnosis of breast carcinoma can increase the survival of breast carcinoma patients. Diagnostic imaging and core biopsy procedures are routinely employed as pre-operative breast carcinoma diagnostic tools. The utility of imaging and core biopsy is dependent on their ability to accurately and reliably detect and characterize malignant tumours. We retrospectively reviewed 266 invasive breast carcinoma patient records in Manitoba, Canada from 2018 to 2019. The aim of the study was to evaluate the level of agreement between diagnostic findings reported from the imaging, core biopsy and surgical excision specimens of breast carcinoma. Level of suspicion on imaging and BI-RADS score were concordant with pathologic tumour type in 85-86% and 100% of cases. Imaging and pathologic tumour size and stage were significantly correlated (R = 0.475, p = <0.001) and concordant in 8% and 53% of cases, respectively. Concordance of pathologic and imaging tumour size was significantly higher in tumours ≤2 cm (p = 0.007). Tumour size ≤2 cm (p = 0.014) and IDC histologic type (p = 0.003) significantly increased the likelihood of tumour stage concordance. Assessment of axillary lymph node disease on imaging and pathology were significantly correlated (p = <0.001). Imaging accurately predicted lymph node status in 74% of patients. Agreement between lymph node status on imaging and pathology was significantly higher in tumours ≤2 cm (p = 0.009). CNB accurately identified breast carcinoma in 99.6% of patients. Histologic grade on CNB and surgical excision were significantly correlated (p = <0.001) and concordant in 62% of cases. Rate of concordance was significantly higher in grade 2 tumours (p = <0.001). A significant correlation (p = <0.001) and concordance rate of 79% were noted between histologic type reported on CNB and surgical excision. The likelihood of histologic type concordance was significantly greater in IDC tumours than other histologic types (p = <0.001). Overall, imaging and CNB of IBC patients in Manitoba, Canada was observed to have reasonable accuracy and reliability in the detection and characterization of breast carcinoma.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".