MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased risk of soft tissue sarcoma after radiotherapy in women with breast carcinoma

2001· article· en· W2055073071 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Tumors and Angiosarcomas
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiosarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaSarcomaCohortRelative riskRadiation therapyBreast cancerCohort studyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyCancer registryPopulationPoisson regressionEpidemiologyOncologyConfidence intervalSurgeryCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies to date have suggested an association between radiation exposure and the development of soft tissue sarcoma. The current study was performed to quantify the risk of soft tissue sarcoma in the vicinity of previously irradiated anatomic regions in women with breast carcinoma. METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, 194,798 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma (exclusive of those with distant metastasis) between 1973--1995 were identified, and subsequent soft tissue sarcoma cases utilizing the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) were ascertained. Poisson regression analysis was used to calculate age standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and to model the influence of radiotherapy (RT) on the relative risk (RR) between the RT and non-RT cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 54 women in the RT cohort and 81 women in the non-RT cohort subsequently developed soft tissue sarcoma. In the RT cohort, the SIR was 26.2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 16.5--41.4) for angiosarcoma and was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.8--3.5) for other sarcomas; in the non-RT cohort, the SIRs were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0--4.4) and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.0--1.7), respectively. The RT cohort demonstrated a higher risk of developing both angiosarcoma (RR: 15.9; 95% CI, 6.6--38.1) and other sarcomas (RR: 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4--3.3) compared with the non-RT cohort, and the largest increase was observed in the chest wall/breast. The elevated RR was significant even within 5 years of RT, but it reached a maximum between 5--10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of soft tissue sarcoma, especially angiosarcoma, was elevated after RT in women with breast carcinoma.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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