MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992774732 · doi:10.1136/ebn.5.3.89

Review: breast cancer is associated with a family history of the disease in first degree relatives

2002· letter· en· W1992774732 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Eisen, Ellen Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerFamily historyMedicineGynecologyEpidemiologyCancerDiseaseFirst-degree relativesInternal medicineObstetricsOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58 209 women with breast cancer and 101 986 women without the disease. Lancet2001 Oct 27; 358 : 1389 –99 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In women with a family history of breast cancer, how does the pattern of breast cancer in first degree relatives affect the risk of developing the disease? Studies were identified by searching computerised literature databases, reviewing bibliographies of review articles, and contacting experts in the field. Studies were selected if they were cohort or nested case control studies, included ≥100 women with incident invasive breast cancer, and information about reproductive or hormonal factors was sought on each woman. Principal investigators of the included studies were contacted for data on each woman regarding whether any of her first degree female relatives (mother, sisters, or daughters) had been diagnosed with breast cancer and, if so, their age when the diagnosis was made. Data were also collected on the numbers of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.volume%253D358%26rft.issue%253D9291%26rft.spage%253D1389%26rft.epage%253D1399%26rft.atitle%253DFamilial%2Bbreast%2Bcancer%253A%2Bcollaborative%2Breanalysis%2Bof%2Bindividual%2Bdata%2Bfrom%2B52%2Bepidemiological%2Bstudies%2Bincluding%2B58%252C209%2Bwomen%2Bwith%2Bbreast%2Bcancer%2Band%2B101%252C986%2Bwomen%2Bwithout%2Bthe%2Bdisease.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252801%252906524-2%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11705483%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(01)06524-2&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11705483&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F89.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000171940100008&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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207