MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Your views and letters

2009· letter· en· W2043312364 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Tarrant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerBreast self-examinationMedicineObservational studyHarmRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineCancerPsychologyPathologyInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of breast self-examination (BSE) has long been advocated by nurses and other health professionals as a non-invasive and inexpensive procedure to improve the early detection of breast cancer. While some of the first observational studies on BSE did show it to be beneficial in reducing breast cancer mortality (Hackshaw & Paul 2003), more recent large scale randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate any reduction in breast cancer mortality rates among those who practice BSE (Thomas et al. 2002, Kösters & Gøtzsche 2003). Moreover, regular breast examination increases the risk of breast biopsy for benign breast lumps in the BSE group (Thomas et al. 2002). Therefore, I read with interest the paper by Alkhasawneh et al. (2009) in a recent issue of this journal on nurses’ knowledge and practice of BSE. The rationale for the study is that nurses who practice BSE regularly would therefore be more knowledgeable about breast cancer screening and be more likely to teach their clients about BSE. The authors state that “it is therefore important for nurses as educators to have appropriate information and positive attitude toward early detection of breast cancer” (p. 413). I agree with this statement but I would suggest that in addition to the potential benefits of BSE, the authors should also have included some discussion of the lack of proven benefits of BSE and the potential harm of BSE that has been reported in more recent studies. The evidence of the lack of demonstrable benefit of BSE has been sufficiently compelling that many cancer prevention organizations (i.e. US National Cancer Institute, US National Breast Cancer Coalition, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, and NHS Cancer Screening Programme) and the Cochrane Group no longer recommend that low-risk asymptomatic women perform monthly BSE (Knutson & Steiner 2007). Guidelines developed by the World Health Organization (2009) for the development of National Cancer Control Programmes in countries around the world, state that “given the present level of evidence, the national cancer control programme should not recommend screening by breast self-examination and physical examinations of the breast.” These recommendations are not without controversy, however, and the American Cancer Society, while no longer recommending regular BSE, still considers BSE an option for women (Smith et al. 2009). Additionally, others argue that the more recent studies still had methodological weaknesses and that the evidence against BSE is not yet conclusive (Kearney & Murray 2006). However, many cancer organizations and experts agree that women who choose to continue to practice monthly BSE should be fully advised of the potential benefits, limitations, and harms (Thomas et al. 2002, Smith et al. 2009). The primary purpose of this letter is not to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of BSE. I believe that the article by Alkhasawneh et al. (2009) would have been strengthened by presenting a more comprehensive overview of the current evidence and controversies about BSE. Failure to do so can mislead the reader. If nurses remain unaware of the evidence for and against BSE, this may further add to the confusion of women about the importance of regular BSE and other preventive health practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3070.212

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207