Physicians' attitudes and behaviour toward screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine family physicians' attitudes and behaviour toward screening mammography, breast self-examination, and breast awareness in women aged 40 to 49 at average risk of breast cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Women's College Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, both in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Family medicine residents, fellows, and staff physicians at 2 academic family practice health centres affiliated with the University of Toronto (n = 95). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' answers to questions about offering screening mammography and promoting breast self-examination and breast awareness. RESULTS: Fifty-two completed surveys were returned (response rate 55%). Less than half of all surveyed family physicians (46%) routinely offered screening mammography to women aged 40 to 49 who were at average risk of breast cancer. Although 40% of physicians did not think breast cancer screening was necessary for women aged 40 to 49, 62% indicated that they would offer screening if their patients requested it. Physicians' reasons not to offer screening included no evidence of decreasing breast cancer deaths (63%), grade A recommendation to screen women starting at age 50 and not at age 40 (25%), and the harms of screening outweighing the benefits (19%). Physicians' reasons to offer screening included patient request (55%), personal clinical practice experience or mentors' recommendations (27%), and guideline recommendations (18%). Breast self-examination was not recommended by most physicians (74%), yet most encouraged women to practise breast awareness (81%). CONCLUSION: Many women at average risk of breast cancer are not being offered the opportunity to discuss and initiate mammographic screening before 50 years of age. While breast-self examination is not recommended, most physicians promote breast awareness.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".