Surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the prevalence of diagnosed breast cancer increases, it is important to define how best to provide long-term follow-up. Whereas many aspects of follow-up remain controversial, guidelines recommend surveillance mammograms as the only investigation to be performed routinely. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to elucidate the effect of routine surveillance mammograms on detecting ipsilateral recurrence (IR) and contralateral breast cancers (CBC). The systematic review yielded 15 articles. All were observational studies and ranked as level II-2 or III evidence. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. Most of the ten studies on detection of IR did not report on outcomes after detection. When reported, most studies found that the method of detection of IR did not influence overall survival or disease-free survival. Two of the nine studies on detection of CBC found that the CBC was detected at an earlier stage than the initial breast cancer, but did not report on long-term outcomes. This systematic review highlights the need for further research to help better define the optimum surveillance mammography regimen.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it