Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the question of whether the trials of breast cancer screening have resulted in a reduction in breast cancer death has been the subject of much scrutiny, there has been less attention to the reduction in tumor size achieved by screening. METHODS: Size data for invasive breast tumors were assembled from a variety of sources. The health consequences that can be expected from finding tumors of various sizes were determined using a recently developed mathematical method for relating tumor size to death rate. RESULTS: First, in both the Swedish two-country trial and at the MGH Breast Imaging Division, the sizes of the invasive breast cancers in the screening population (those masses seen at screening together with those found as palpable masses after screening examinations) were sufficiently smaller than the cancers found among women who had not used screening to have lead to considerable reductions in death. Second, the lack of reduction in death rates detected in both Canadian National Breast Screening Studies could be ascribed to the small reductions in tumor size achieved in these studies. Third, radiographic density had a small effect, whereas age had a negligible effect, on the capacity of mammographic screening to find breast carcinomas at smaller, and thus less lethal, sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt attendance at annual mammographic screening offers the potential to reduce tumor size and, presumably, breast carcinoma death, in women of all ages and density groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".