Estimating survival rates after ovarian cancer among women tested for <scp>BRCA1</scp> and <scp>BRCA2</scp> mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have reported that women with ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have better survival than women with ovarian cancer and no mutation. Potential reasons for this include possible differences in histologic subtype, stage, grade and response to chemotherapy, but some of the difference in survival may be due to systematic bias, i.e. a difference in survival rates for women who do and who do not undergo genetic testing. We estimated the survival rate in 1423 ovarian cancer patients from Ontario who had genetic testing and compared this with the survival rate for all 3367 ovarian cancer patients from the province from whom the tested sample was derived. Tested women had a 10-year survival of 54.5%, compared to 35.8% for all patients in the province. We evaluated the extent to which three different methods of adjustment eliminated the observed difference. The adjusted rates for the tested cohort were closer to the provincial average, but each adjustment method resulted in a modest over-estimate of 10-year survival, ranging from 6.1% to 10.0%. The mortality advantage for tested women was due, in part, to a lower than expected mortality rate of tested women in the period following genetic testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".