Ascertaining Prognosis for Breast Cancer in Node-Negative Patients with Innovative Survival Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical decisions to administer adjuvant systemic therapy to women with early breast cancer require knowledge about baseline prognosis, which is only assessable in the absence of such adjuvant treatment, which most patients currently do receive. The Cox model is the standard tool for assessing the effect of prognostic factors; however, there may be substantive differences in the estimated prognosis obtained by the Cox model rather than a log-normal model. For more than 50 years, clinical breast cancer data for cohorts of patients have supported the choice of a log-normal model. The prognostic impact of model type is examined here for a cohort of breast cancer patients, only 7% of whom received adjuvant systemic therapy. We quantitated prognosis utilizing Kaplan-Meier, Cox, and log-normal survival analyses for 415 consecutive T1-T3, M0, histologically node-negative patients who were operated on for primary breast cancer at Women's College Hospital between 1977 and 1986. Recurrence outside the breast for disease-free interval (DFI) and breast cancer death for disease-specific survival (DSS) were the events of interest. The patient follow-up for these investigations was 96% complete: a median 8 years for those surviving. Factors used in these investigations were age, weight, tumor size, histology, tumor grade, nuclear grade, lymphovascular invasion, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), combined ER/PR receptor, overexpression of neu oncoprotein, DNA ploidy, S-phase, and adjuvant therapy. In our study we found evidence against the Cox assumption of proportional hazards, which is not an assumption for the log-normal approach. We identified patients with greater than 96% and others with less than 40% DSS at 10 years. The difference in prognosis determined by using the Cox versus the log-normal model ranged for DFI from 1.2% to 8.1%, and for DSS from 0.4% to 6.2%; interestingly, the difference was more substantial for patients with a high risk of recurrence or death from breast cancer. Estimated prognoses may differ substantially by survival analysis model type, by amounts that might affect patient management, and we think that the log-normal model has a major advantage over the Cox model for survival analysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".