Parameter estimates for invasive breast cancer progression in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of screening is to detect a cancer in the preclinical state. However, a false-positive or a false-negative test result is a real possibility. METHODS: We describe invasive breast cancer progression in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study and construct progression models with and without covariates. The effect of risk factors on transition intensities and false-negative probability is investigated. We estimate the transition rates, the sojourn time and sensitivity of diagnostic tests for women aged 40-49 and 50-59. RESULTS: Although younger women have a slower transition rate from healthy state to preclinical, their screen-detected tumour becomes evident sooner. Women aged 50-59 have a higher mortality rate compared with younger women. The mean sojourn times for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 are 2.5 years (95% CI: 1.7, 3.8) and 3.0 years (95% CI: 2.1, 4.3), respectively. Sensitivity of diagnostic procedures for older women is estimated to be 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.88), while women aged 40-49 have a lower sensitivity (0.61, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.77). Age is the only factor that affects the false-negative probability. For women aged 40-49, 'age at entry', 'history of breast disease' and 'families with breast cancer' are found to be significant for some of the transition rates. For the age-group 50-59, 'age at entry', 'history of breast disease', 'menstruation length' and 'number of live births' are found to affect the transition rates. CONCLUSION: Modelling and estimating the parameters of cancer progression are essential steps towards evaluating the effectiveness of screening policies. The parameters include the transition rates, the preclinical sojourn time, the sensitivity, and the effect of different risk factors on cancer progression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".