MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048653123 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2004.13.822

Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy for Breast Cancer Prevention

2004· review· en· W2048653123 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Metcalfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsCoalition for Research in Women's Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProphylactic MastectomyProphylactic SurgeryMedicineMastectomyPsychosocialBreast cancerDistressGynecologyCancerSurgeryObstetricsInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prophylactic bilateral mastectomy, or preventive removal of the breasts, is an option for women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Among the highest risk groups are those women with a significant family history of breast cancer and those with a known genetic predisposition to the disease. There are many issues surrounding prophylactic mastectomy. Recent research has demonstrated that prophylactic mastectomy may be effective in preventing breast cancer in high-risk women, as well as those with a known BRCA1/2 mutation. The limited research that has been done on the psychosocial implications of the preventive surgery suggests that prophylactic mastectomy may be effective in reducing distress levels in high-risk women and that most women who have had the surgery do not experience psychosocial difficulties. Overall, women who have had prophylactic mastectomy are satisfied with their decision to have the preventive surgery. However, women who choose prophylactic mastectomy may differ compared with those who do not. The results may not be generalizable to all high-risk women. Counseling of high-risk women, specifically those with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, should include a discussion of prophylactic mastectomy, including the medical and psychosocial risks and benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207