MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085961532 · doi:10.1002/cncr.21988

Proceedings of the consensus conference on breast conservation, April 28 to May 1, 2005, Milan, Italy

2006· article· en· W2085961532 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon F. Schwartz, Umberto Veronesi, Krishna B. Clough, J. Michael Dixon, Ian S. Fentiman, Sylvia H. Heywang‐Köbrunner, Roland Holland, Kevin S. Hughes, Richard G. Margolese, Ivo A. Olivotto, Juan Palazzo, Lawrence J. Solin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCosmesisBreast cancerConsensus conferenceMastectomyBreast-conserving surgeryModalitiesStage (stratigraphy)Radiation therapyMedical physicsGeneral surgeryOncologyFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a single generation the treatment of most women with early‐stage breast cancer has changed dramatically. Clinical trials with more than 20 years of follow‐up have documented that for appropriately selected patients breast conserving surgery, followed by whole breast irradiation, has an outcome equivalent to mastectomy. The appropriate selection of patients remains controversial. Questions remain regarding the role of new diagnostic imaging modalities, radiation therapy techniques, achieving optimal cosmesis, the choice and the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy, etc. To address these issues, the fifth international consensus conference of the Breast Health Institute, cosponsored by the European Institute of Oncology, was convened in Milan, April 29 through May 1, 2005. This article is a summary of the proceedings.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207