MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1832756002 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h3392

Most women with early stage breast cancer are tested for metastases despite advice against it, study finds

2015· article· en· W1832756002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocalyn Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerStage (stratigraphy)AsymptomaticClinical OncologyOncologyCancerInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerGynecologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighty six per cent of women with early stage breast cancer underwent imaging to determine whether their cancer had spread, contradicting guidelines advising against such testing, a study published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association, CMAJ , has found.1 Guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European School of Oncology, and Cancer Care Ontario recommend against imaging for metastatic cancer in asymptomatic women with stage I or II breast cancer, because the likelihood of metastases was low and the rate of false positive results high. The study of 26 547 women in Ontario who had been …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→