Increased Use of Adjuvant Regional Radiotherapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer in British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to determine if the use of regional radiotherapy (RT) changed in British Columbia after publication of new randomized trial data in 1997. Women with pathologic T1-3N1, nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were included. The use of regional RT was compared in two cohorts: cohort 1, July 1, 1995-June 30, 1997 (n = 834); and cohort 2, July 1, 1998-June 30, 2000 (n = 1072). All p-values were two-sided. Adjuvant systemic therapy was given to 96% and 95% of women in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Forty-five percent of cohort 1 and 48% of cohort 2 had BCS. Regional RT was received by 44% of cohort 1 and 66% of cohort 2 (p < 0.001). Eighty-eight percent and 90% of women with four or more positive nodes in cohorts 1 and 2 received regional RT, respectively. For women in cohorts 1 and 2 with one to three positive nodes, regional RT use increased from 32% to 54% after mastectomy, and from 23% to 59% after BCS, respectively (p < 0.001 for both). Publication of randomized trials and a coordinated guideline implementation process in British Columbia was associated with a significant increase in the use of regional RT in women with one to three positive nodes.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it