Delphi‐panel analysis of appropriateness of high‐dose chemotherapy and blood cell or bone marrow autotransplants in women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant is a better treatment than conventional-dose chemotherapy for women with local/regional or metastatic breast cancer. Subject selection and time-to-treatment biases make definitive comparison impossible. Recent results of randomized trials are contradictory. OBJECTIVE: Determine appropriateness of high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant in women with breast cancer. PANELISTS: Nine breast cancer experts from diverse geographic sites and practice settings. EVIDENCE: Boolean MEDLINE searches of 'breast cancer' and 'chemotherapy' and/or 'blood cell' or 'bone marrow transplants'. PROCESS: We used a modified Delphi-panel group judgement process. Clinical variables were permuted to define 2058 clinical settings. Each panelist rated appropriateness of high-dose therapy and an autotransplant versus conventional therapy on a 9-point ordinal scale (1: most inappropriate, 9: most appropriate). An appropriateness index was developed based on median rating and amount of disagreement. The relationship of appropriateness indices to the permuted clinical variables was considered by analysis of variance and recursive partitioning. CONCLUSIONS: In women with local/regional breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with > or = 10 cancer-involved lymph nodes; 2) uncertain in those with 4-9 cancer-involved nodes; and 3) inappropriate in women with < or = 3 cancer-involved lymph nodes. In women with metastatic breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with metastases to 'favorable' sites (skin, lymph node, pleura) and a complete or partial response to chemotherapy; 2) uncertain in women with metastases to 'unfavorable' sites (lung, liver, or central nervous system) and a complete response to chemotherapy or those with bone metastases and a complete or partial response or stable disease after chemotherapy; and 3) inappropriate in other settings.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".