Are There Differences in Treatment and Survival Between Poor, Older Black and White Women with Breast Cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in treatment and survival outcome between poor, older black and white women with breast cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Public safety net hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 65 and older diagnosed with breast cancer from 1999 to 2008 (n = 1,000). MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer treatments that black and white women sought were compared using the Pearson chi-square test. All-cause mortality of black and white women was compared using hazard ratios derived from a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between older black and white women in surgical treatment, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or hormone therapy over the study period. Race was not a significant predictor of survival in the Cox proportional hazards model that controlled for stage of cancer, age at diagnosis, dual-eligibility status, comorbid conditions, body mass index, smoking history, mammogram screening, and treatment for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Race did not appear to affect treatment or mortality in a cohort of older women with low socioeconomic status. This may be associated with similar healthcare delivery and equivalent access to health care for the older black and white women in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".