Survival of women with breast cancer in Ottawa, Canada: variation with age, stage, histology, grade and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the 5-year survival of 2192 breast cancer women diagnosed between 1994 and 1997 in Ottawa, Canada, by age, TNM stage, histology, grade and treatment, including assessment of the independent value of variables in defining prognosis. Our results showed that age, stage, treatment and grade significantly influenced outcome regardless of the confounding factors considered, with histology failing to achieve significant independent prognostic information. The survival rates were highest at ages 50-69 years for stage I and at ages 40-49 years for stages II-IV. The rates were lowest at ages <or=39 years for stages I-II and at ages >or=70 years for stages III-IV. The differences in survival between grade 1 and grade 3 were 9% in stage I and 20% in stage II. The treatment leading to the best survival was surgery plus radiation for stages I-II and surgery combined with chemotherapy for stages III-IV. Lobular carcinoma had a better prognosis than ductal carcinoma; this can be explained by more grade 1 and less grade 3 cases in lobular carcinoma. The worse prognosis for young patients than other ages can be explained by their higher proportion of poorly differentiated cancers. Stage I patients aged 50-69 years having the best survival is likely due to the earlier diagnosis achieved through screening.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".