A Review of Interval Breast Cancers Diagnosed among Participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a radiologic review of interval breast cancer cases to determine rates of true interval and missed cancers in Nova Scotia, Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quality assurance project was exempt from institutional review board approval. Interval cancer cases were identified among women aged 40-69 years who were participants in the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program from 1991 to 2004. For each case, the index negative screening mammogram was reviewed blindly by three radiologists from a pool of experienced radiologists. Cases were identified as those with normal or abnormal findings, the latter being a case that required further investigation. True interval cases were identified as cases in which a minimum of two radiologists reviewed the findings as normal. True interval and missed cancer rates were calculated separately for women according to age group and screening interval (for ages 40-49 years, a 1-year interval; for ages 50-69 years, a 1-year and a 2-year interval). RESULTS: The rate of missed cancers per 1000 women screened was one-half of the true interval rate among women screened annually (for ages 40-49 years, 0.45 vs 0.93; for ages 50-69 years, 1.08 vs 2.22). Among women aged 50-69 years who were screened biennially, the rate of missed cancers per 1000 women screened was one-third of the true interval rate (0.90 vs 3.15). Similarly, the rate of missed cancers per 10,000 screening examinations was one-half of the true interval rate among those 40-49 years old (1.95 vs 3.99) and one-third of the true interval rate among those 50-69 years old (3.34 vs 10.44). CONCLUSION: In screening programs, true interval cancer rates should be differentiated from missed cancer rates as part of ongoing quality assurance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".