Local and Regional Therapy for Women with Breast Cancer in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbian provincial practice guidelines (PPGs) have recommended breast-conserving surgery (BCS), axillary node dissection, and radiation therapy following BCS for specific subgroups of breast cancer patients. Patient-, disease-, and physician-specific factors associated with these therapies were investigated in nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer patients. Temporal trends in BCS and physicians' experiences with PPGs were also examined. Sources of data for patient, disease, treatment, and treating physician factors included medical records, source documents, and the British Columbia Medical Directory for 967 nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed in British Columbia in 1995. BCS utilization among 496 patients with pathologically node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) was compared to earlier British Columbian data. Family physicians and surgeons were surveyed in 1997 regarding their experience with PPGs. 57% of "ideal" candidates received BCS; 87% of patients received axillary node dissection; and 95% of women treated with BCS also received radiation therapy. Tumor size, tumor location, and extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were associated with BCS use; age, tumor size, and tumor location were associated with axillary node dissection; and age alone was associated with radiation therapy following BCS. Fifty-four percent of NNBC patients received BCS in 1995, compared to 44% in 1991, with increases seen in most patient-, disease-, and physician-specific comparisons. The increase in BCS, and high proportion completing radiation therapy, are encouraging and may be due in part to greater exposure to PPGs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".