Tamoxifen with or without Breast Irradiation in Women 50 Years of Age or Older with Early Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We determined the effect of breast irradiation plus tamoxifen on disease-free survival and local relapse in women 50 years of age or older who had T1 or T2 node-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Between December 1992 and June 2000, 769 women with early breast cancer (tumor diameter, 5 cm or less) were randomly assigned to receive breast irradiation plus tamoxifen (386 women) or tamoxifen alone (383 women). The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The rate of local relapse at five years was 7.7 percent in the tamoxifen group and 0.6 percent in the group given tamoxifen plus irradiation (hazard ratio, 8.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.3 to 21.2; P<0.001), with corresponding five-year disease-free survival rates of 84 percent and 91 percent (P=0.004). A planned subgroup analysis of 611 women with T1, receptor-positive tumors indicated a benefit from radiotherapy (five-year rates of local relapse, 0.4 percent with tamoxifen plus radiotherapy and 5.9 percent with tamoxifen alone; P<0.001). Overall, there was a significant difference in the rate of axillary relapse at five years (2.5 percent in the tamoxifen group and 0.5 percent in the group given tamoxifen plus irradiation, P=0.049), but no significant difference in the rates of distant relapse or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with tamoxifen alone, radiotherapy plus tamoxifen significantly reduces the risk of breast and axillary recurrence after lumpectomy in women with small, node-negative, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".