Was Breast Conserving Surgery Underutilized for Early Stage Breast Cancer? Instrumental Variables Evidence for Stage II Patients from Iowa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the average survival effects of breast conserving surgery plus irradiation relative to mastectomy for marginal stage II breast cancer patients in Iowa from 1989-1994. DATA SOURCES/DATA SETTING: Secondary linked Iowa SEER Cancer Registry--Iowa Hospital Association discharge abstract data for women in Iowa with stage II breast cancer from 1989-1994. STUDY DESIGN: Observational instrumental variables (IV) analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Women with stage II breast cancer from the Iowa SEER Cancer Registry 1989-1994 who received all of their inpatient care in Iowa were linked with their respective hospital discharge abstracts. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Breast conserving surgery plus irradiation decreased survival relative to mastectomy for marginal stage II breast cancer patients in Iowa during the early 1990s. In this study marginal patients were those whose surgery choices were affected by differences in area treatment rates and access to radiation facilities. CONCLUSIONS: If marginal patients are representative of patients whose treatment choices would be affected by changes in treatment rates, an increase in the breast conserving surgery plus irradiation rate for stage II early stage breast cancer patients would have decreased survival in Iowa during the early 1990s. Further research with newer data and broader samples is needed to make more current and specific assessments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".