Are Two-Centimeter Breast Cancers Large or Small?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Node-negative breast cancers from 2 cm to 5 cm in size are classified as stage ii, and smaller cancers, as stage i. We sought to determine if the prognosis of women with a breast cancer exactly 2 cm in size more closely resembles that of women with a stage i or a stage ii breast cancer. METHODS: Using a cohort of 4265 young women with breast cancer, we compared the 10-year breast cancer mortality rates for women who had a tumour 0.1-1.9 cm, exactly 2.0 cm, and 2.1-2.9 cm. RESULTS: In the first 3 years after diagnosis, the survival pattern of women with a 2.0-cm breast cancer was nearly identical to that of women with a larger cancer (2.1-3.0 cm). From year 3 to year 10, the relative survival of women with a 2.0-cm breast cancer was improved and nearly identical to that of women with a smaller cancer. The 10-year survival rate was 89.3% for women with tumours less than 20 mm, 86.1% for women with tumours equal to 20 mm, and 81.2% for women with 21-mm to 29-mm tumours. CONCLUSIONS: For young women with small breast cancers, the relative mortality from breast cancer is dynamic with increasing tumour size and varies with time from diagnosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".