Accuracy of Self-Reported Screening Mammography Use: Examining Recall among 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
Evidence of the accuracy of self-reported mammography use among women with familial breast cancer risk is limited. This study examined the accuracy of self-reported screening mammography dates in a cohort of 1,114 female relatives of breast cancer cases, aged 26 to 73 from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Self-reported dates were compared to dates abstracted from imaging reports. Associations between inaccurate recall and subject characteristics were assessed using multinomial regression. Almost all women (95.2% at baseline, 98.5% at year 1, 99.8% at year 2) accurately reported their mammogram use within the previous 12 months. Women at low familial risk (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.00-3.13), who reported 1 or fewer annual visits to a health professional (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39), exhibited a lower perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.15), and reported a mammogram date more than 12 months previous (OR = 5.22, 95% CI: 3.10, 8.80), were significantly more likely to inaccurately recall their mammogram date. Women with varying levels of familial risk are accurate reporters of their mammogram use. These results present the first evidence of self-reported mammography recall accuracy among women with varying levels of 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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