MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

National Adoption of Sentinel Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer: Lessons Learned from the Canadian Experience

2008· article· en· W2031007390 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityHôpital du Saint-SacrementJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSentinel lymph nodeBreast cancerAxillary Lymph Node DissectionBiopsySentinel nodeBreast-conserving surgeryAxillaGeneral surgeryDuctal carcinomaCancerSurgeryMastectomyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer has not been readily adopted into Canadian surgical practice in comparison with the United States. We sought to evaluate current national practice patterns and explore barriers to direct efforts to improve the adoption of SLNB in Canada. All active (n = 1413) general surgeons in Canada were surveyed by mail. Surgeon demographics, practice patterns, skill acquisition and attitudes towards SLNB were assessed. The response rate was 63% (n = 889). Of the 506 (57%) surgeons who treated breast cancer, half were community based with breast surgery comprising <25% of their practices. Most (70%) performed <or=5 breast surgeries/month. Almost all (96%) believed SLNB was standard of care or an acceptable alternative to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Of these, 306 (61%) performed SLNB. Predictors of performing SLNB were breast/oncology fellowship (p = 0.03) or greater percentage of practice dedicated to breast (p = 0.02) but not region, type of practice (community versus academic), gender or year of residency completion. Reasons for performing SLNB were decreased morbidity (85%) and enhanced staging (59%) as opposed to competitive pressure (13%). The majority (75%) performed SLNB as a stand-alone procedure for T1/T2 cancers and high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (70%). Almost half (46%) abandoned back up ALND after 30 or fewer cases even though the majority (75%) acknowledged the false-negative rate should be <5%. Most (76%) learned SLNB through mentoring or a formal course/residency. Of the 197 (39%) not performing SLNB, 53% felt that inadequate access to nuclear medicine and gamma probe equipment was the predominant barrier. SLNB has been adopted into Canadian surgical practice. The majority of surgeons believe that SLNB is an acceptable alternative to ALND, with 61% now performing SLNB compared to 27% in 2001. Barriers to implementation appear to be related to inadequate resources as opposed to lack of belief in the procedure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.257 · 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