MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559552676 · doi:10.1186/bcr934

Ratios of involved nodes in early breast cancer

2004· article· en· W1559552676 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer Agency
FundersMagyar Tudományos Akadémia
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerLymph nodeHazard ratioAxillary Lymph Node DissectionOdds ratioConfidence intervalEpidemiologyInternal medicineLymphNode (physics)Dissection (medical)Proportional hazards modelSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsOncologyCancerSurgeryPathologyCancer registrySentinel lymph node

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The number of lymph nodes found to be involved in an axillary dissection is among the most powerful prognostic factors in breast cancer, but it is confounded by the number of lymph nodes that have been examined. We investigate an idea that has surfaced recently in the literature (since 1999), namely that the proportion of node-positive lymph nodes (or a function thereof) is a much better predictor of survival than the number of excised and node-positive lymph nodes, alone or together. METHODS: The data were abstracted from 83,686 cases registered in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of women diagnosed with nonmetastatic T1-T2 primary breast carcinoma between 1988 and 1997, in whom axillary node dissection was performed. The end-point was death from breast cancer. Cox models based on different expressions of nodal involvement were compared using the Nagelkerke R2 index (R2N). Ratios were modeled as percentage and as log odds of involved nodes. Log odds were estimated in a way that avoids singularities (zero values) by using the empirical logistic transform. RESULTS: In node-negative cases both the number of nodes excised and the log odds were significant, with hazard ratios of 0.991 (95% confidence interval 0.986-0.997) and 1.150 (1.058-1.249), respectively, but without improving R2N. In node-positive cases the hazard ratios were 1.003-1.088 for the number of involved nodes, 0.966-1.005 for the number of excised nodes, 1.015-1.017 for the percentage, and 1.344-1.381 for the log odds. R2N improved from 0.067 (no nodal covariate) to 0.102 (models based on counts only) and to 0.108 (models based on ratios). DISCUSSION: Ratios are simple optimal predictors, in that they provide at least the same prognostic value as the more traditional staging based on counting of involved nodes, without replacing them with a needlessly complicated alternative. They can be viewed as a per patient standardization in which the number of involved nodes is standardized to the number of nodes excised. In an extension to the study, ratios were validated in a comparison with categorized staging measures using blinded data from the San Jose-Monterey cancer registry. A ratio based prognostic index was also derived. It improved the Nottingham Prognostic Index without compromising on simplicity.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.324 · 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