Adherence to breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations for female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares adherence to breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations among a population cohort of women at familial risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. This cross-sectional study included 1039 first-degree female relatives without breast cancer identified from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. We compared breast and ovarian cancer screening behaviors, using a telephone-administered questionnaire among three groups of women defined by their familial risk (high, moderate, and low) of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Associations between screening behaviors and familial risk were assessed using multinomial regression models adjusted by familial clustering. Women, 40-49 years of age, at moderate or high familial risk were significantly more likely to have had a screening mammogram within the past 12 months [odds ratio (OR): 2.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-5.58], and women of less than 50 years of age were more likely to have a clinical breast examination (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.02-3.31) compared with women at low familial risk. Compared with women at low or moderate familial risk, women at high familial risk were significantly more likely to have ever had a genetic test for the BRCA 1/2 genes (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.76-4.05). Although the overall level of adherence among high-risk women is suboptimal in the community, women at a higher familial risk are adhering more often to cancer screening recommendations than women at a lower familial risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it