A retrospective study of the effect of participation in screening mammography on the use of chemotherapy and breast conserving surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population sample was obtained from the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Registry of all women diagnosed with a first breast cancer in 2002 who were resident in Greater Vancouver or Greater Victoria, BC. Information on treatment and prognostic factors were obtained from source records. The study group was linked to the records of the Screening Mammography Program of BC to identify screening histories on women prior to diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between screening participation and treatment and to predict treatment use from prognostic factors. Fifteen hundred and eighty-nine women with breast cancer were included in the study and 1,071 (67%) had participated in screening prior to diagnosis: 786 (49%) had been screened within the 30 months prior to their diagnosis (regular participants). Breast conserving surgery (BCS) rates were higher (OR = 2.3, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy use lower (OR = 0.53, p < 0.001) among regular participants compared with nonparticipants after adjustment for age. A predictive model based on the distribution of prognostic factors between participants provided estimates of OR = 1.47 and OR = 0.54 for BCS and chemotherapy, respectively, and adjustment for self-selection changed the predicted values to OR = 1.16 and OR = 0.67, respectively. Participation in screening produced a considerable change in the use of chemotherapy but less on BCS use.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".