Review: radiotherapy reduces death from and recurrence of breast cancer but increases death from other causes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2000) Lancet 355, 1757. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. . Favourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. . May 20; . : . –70 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In women with early breast cancer, what are the long term (20 y) effects of radiotherapy on mortality from breast cancer and on mortality from causes other than breast cancer? Studies were identified by searching published lists of randomised trials and Medline; handsearching selected journals, meeting abstracts, and references of published trials and reviews; and by contacting experts repeatedly over a 15 year period. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials begun before 1990 that compared radiotherapy plus other treatments with the same treatments without radiotherapy. Information was requested for each woman on age; menopausal status; type of surgery and nodal status; and dates of randomisation, allocated treatment, first subsequent local recurrence, and death. Data from 19 582 women were assembled from 40 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.volume%253D355%26rft.issue%253D9217%26rft.spage%253D1757%26rft.epage%253D1770%26rft.atitle%253DFavourable%2Band%2Bunfavourable%2Beffects%2Bon%2Blong-term%2Bsurvival%2Bof%2Bradiotherapy%2Bfor%2Bearly%2Bbreast%2Bcancer%253A%2Ban%2Boverview%2Bof%2Bthe%2Brandomised%2Btrials.%2BEarly%2BBreast%2BCancer%2BTrialists%2527%2BCollaborative%2BGroup.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252800%252902263-7%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10832826%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02263-7&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10832826&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F2%2F53.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087126100010&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".