Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Surg Res ; 216: 30-34, 2017 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28807211

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation therapy has become a preferred method of treating early-stage breast cancer. As care continues to evolve, certain lesions allowed less invasive treatment options. A simplified explanation of early breast cancer care is detection, biopsy, surgery, and adjuvant therapy. The authors look to challenge that algorithm for a specific type of disease. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify all subcentimeter breast cancer that underwent surgery after core biopsy. These cases (n = 115) were analyzed for biopsy technique and outcome of final surgical excision to find when no residual disease was found on final pathology, potentially rendering the surgical resection an unneeded procedure. RESULTS: The authors found that 17 of 115 patients (14.8%) who underwent biopsy for subcentimeter breast cancer had no residual disease found on final surgical resection. Although the subsets were small, the largest core needle resulted in negative pathology two of three times, while the smallest gauge, never resulted in negative resection at time of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly, fifteen percent of patients were found to have no residual disease on final surgical pathology. These results were obtained when the radiologist was simply trying to get tissue diagnosis. The authors postulate that this percentage could be even higher if protocols were initiated to biopsy these small lesions with larger core biopsies and possibly alleviate the need for formal surgery in these specific, small lesion.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast/pathology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology , Mastectomy , Adult , Aged , Biopsy, Large-Core Needle , Breast/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/surgery , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Female , Humans , Mastectomy/methods , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
2.
J Surg Educ ; 81(6): 780-785, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38679494

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have given rise to sophisticated algorithms capable of generating human-like text. The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of human reviewers to reliably differentiate personal statements (PS) written by human authors from those generated by AI software. SETTING: Four personal statements from the archives of two surgical program directors were de-identified and used as the human samples. Two AI platforms were used to generate nine additional PS. PARTICIPANTS: Four surgeons from the residency selection committees of two surgical residency programs of a large multihospital system served as blinded reviewers. AI was also asked to evaluate each PS sample for authorship. DESIGN: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the reviewers in identifying the PS author were calculated. Kappa statistic for correlation between the hypothesized author and the true author were calculated. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the kappa statistic with Light's modification given more than two reviewers in a fully-crossed design. Logistic regression was performed with to model the impact of perceived creativity, writing quality, and authorship or the likelihood of offering an interview. RESULTS: Human reviewer sensitivity for identifying an AI-generated PS was 0.87 with specificity of 0.37 and overall accuracy of 0.55. The level of agreement by kappa statistic of the reviewer estimate of authorship and the true authorship was 0.19 (slight agreement). The reviewers themselves had an inter-rater reliability of 0.067 (poor), with only complete agreement (four out of four reviewers) on two PS, both authored by humans. The odds ratio of offering an interview (compared to a composite of "backup" status or no interview) to a perceived human author was 7 times that of a perceived AI author (95% confidence interval 1.5276 to 32.0758, p=0.0144). AI hypothesized human authorship for twelve of the PS, with the last one "unsure." CONCLUSIONS: The increasing pervasiveness of AI will have far-reaching effects including on the resident application and recruitment process. Identifying AI-generated personal statements is exceedingly difficult. With the decreasing availability of objective data to assess applicants, a review and potential restructuring of the approach to resident recruitment may be warranted.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Internship and Residency , Internship and Residency/methods , Humans , General Surgery/education , Personnel Selection/methods , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Authorship
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL