Performance measures from 10 years of breast screening in the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990/91 to 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance measures for the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by age group, time period and screening modality from 10 years of breast screening were evaluated. Data were available from routine information collected on 283,962 women aged 50 to 69 screened at 73 screening centres between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 2000. Although, initially, participation in the OBSP was low, this rate increased over time and the majority of women screened returned for subsequent screening. Abnormal call rates increased slightly over the time period, were higher in women aged 50 to 59, and for women with mammographic abnormalities. Detection rates of invasive cancer were higher and prognostic features of cancers were better for women age 60 to 69, and those referred by mammography. Along with the prognostic features of cancers, the benign to malignant surgical ratio and diagnostic interval improved over the time periods and for women aged 60 to 69. Greater proportions of women had shorter diagnostic intervals and were more likely to have a diagnosis of breast cancer after surgery if they were referred by both clinical breast examination and mammography. Although some enhancements of the programme are necessary, the OBSP met or exceeded Canadian targets for most performance measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".