MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Cancer in Limited-Resource Countries: Health Care Systems and Public Policy

2006· article· en· W2019075819 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin O. Anderson, Cheng Har Yip, Scott D. Ramsey, Rafael Bengoa, Susan Braun, Margaret I. Fitch, Martijn Groot, H Sancho-Garnier, Vivien Tsu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsHealth careBreast cancerPublic healthBusinessMedicinePsychological interventionHealth policyContext (archaeology)HRHISEconomic growthNursingCancerEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the largest cancer killer of women around the globe, breast cancer adversely impacts countries at all levels of economic development. Despite major advances in the early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer, health care ministries face multitiered challenges to create and support health care programs that can improve breast cancer outcomes. In addition to the financial and organizational problems inherent in any health care system, breast health programs are hindered by a lack of recognition of cancer as a public health priority, trained health care personnel shortages and migration, public and health care provider educational deficits, and social barriers that impede patient entry into early detection and cancer treatment programs. No perfect health care system exists, even in the wealthiest countries. Based on inevitable economic and practical constraints, all health care systems are compelled to make trade-offs among four factors: access to care, scope of service, quality of care, and cost containment. Given these trade-offs, guidelines can define stratified approaches by which economically realistic incremental improvements can be sequentially implemented within the context of resource constraints to improve breast health care. Disease-specific "vertical" programs warrant "horizontal" integration with existing health care systems in limited-resource countries. The Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Health Care Systems and Public Policy Panel defined a stratified framework outlining recommended breast health care interventions for each of four incremental levels of resources (basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal). Reallocation of existing resources and integration of a breast health care program with existing programs and infrastructure can potentially improve outcomes in a cost-sensitive manner. This adaptable framework can be used as a tool by policymakers for program planning and research design to make best use of available resources to improve breast health care in a given limited-resource setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0150.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations170
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Breast JournalSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207