Breast cancer treatment and ethnicity in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival and mortality are well documented; but few studies have reported on disparities in breast cancer treatment. This paper compares the treatment received by breast cancer patients in British Columbia (BC) for three ethnic groups and three time periods. Values for breast cancer treatments received in the BC general population are provided for reference. METHODS: Information on patients, tumour characteristics and treatment was obtained from BC Cancer Registry (BCCR) and BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) records. Treatment among ethnic groups was analyzed by stage at diagnosis and time period at diagnosis. Differences among the three ethnic groups were tested using chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests and a multivariate logistic model. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall surgery use for stage I and II disease between the ethnic groups, however there were significant differences when surgery with and without radiation were considered separately. These differences did not change significantly with time. Treatment with chemotherapy and hormone therapy did not differ among the minority groups. CONCLUSION: The description of treatment differences is the first step to guiding interventions that reduce ethnic disparities. Specific studies need to examine reasons for the observed differences and the influence of culture and beliefs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".