MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019458473 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-1533

Intrinsic Breast Tumor Subtypes, Race, and Long-Term Survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study

2010· article· en· W2019458473 on OpenAlexaff
Katie M. O’Brien, Stephen R. Cole, Chiu-Kit Tse, Charles M. Perou, Lisa A. Carey, William D. Foulkes, Lynn G. Dressler, Joseph Geradts, Robert C. Millikan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineEstrogen receptorInternal medicineOncologyCancerBasal (medicine)PopulationEstrogenBreast diseaseGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Previous research identified differences in breast cancer-specific mortality across 4 intrinsic tumor subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive/estrogen receptor negative (HER2(+)/ER(-)). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used immunohistochemical markers to subtype 1,149 invasive breast cancer patients (518 African American, 631 white) in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based study of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Vital status was determined through 2006 using the National Death Index, with median follow-up of 9 years. RESULTS: Cancer subtypes luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, and HER2(+)/ER(-) were distributed as 64%, 11%, 11%, and 5% for whites, and 48%, 8%, 22%, and 7% for African Americans, respectively. Breast cancer mortality was higher for participants with HER2(+)/ER(-) and basal-like breast cancer compared with luminal A and B. African Americans had higher breast cancer-specific mortality than whites, but the effect of race was statistically significant only among women with luminal A breast cancer. However, when compared with the luminal A subtype within racial categories, mortality for participants with basal-like breast cancer was higher among whites (HR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.4) than African Americans (HR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.4), with the strongest effect seen in postmenopausal white women (HR = 3.9, 95% CI: 1.5-10.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the association of basal-like breast cancer with poor prognosis and suggest that basal-like breast cancer is not an inherently more aggressive disease in African American women compared with whites. Additional analyses are needed in populations with known treatment profiles to understand the role of tumor subtypes and race in breast cancer mortality, and in particular our finding that among women with luminal A breast cancer, African Americans have higher mortality than whites.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations435
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207