MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038865575 · doi:10.3322/canjclin.52.5.256

Standard for the Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast (DCIS)

2002· review· en· W2038865575 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Morrow, E. A. Strom, L W Bassett, D. David Dershaw, Barbara Fowble, J. R. Harris, F. O’Malley, Stuart J. Schnitt, S. Eva Singletary, David P. Winchester

Bibliographic record

VenueCA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuctal carcinomaMedicineMultidisciplinary approachOncologyBreast cancerGeneral surgeryInternal medicineRadiologyMedical physicsCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multidisciplinary guidelines for management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from the American College of Radiology, the American College of Surgeons, the College of American Pathology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology have been updated to take into account continuing advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. The continued growth in mammographic evaluation and technology has resulted in an increase in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS). The resulting guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making for patients with DCIS based on review of relevant literature, and includes information on patient selection and evaluation, technical aspects of surgical treatment, techniques of irradiation, and follow-up care.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations152
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCA A Cancer Journal for CliniciansSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207