False-Positive Result and Reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between initial screen result and returning for a second screen in an organised breast screening programme for women with a biennial screening recommendation. SETTING: Women who attended the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 140723 Ontario women aged 50 years and older who had an initial screen at the OBSP between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 1995 and were followed until 30 June 1998. Rescreening rates at 36 months and risk ratio estimates were calculated using survival methods. Age of women, year of screen, region (within Ontario) and initial screen result were compared. For initial screen results, returning for a second screen was examined by integration of screening centre with an assessment programme and by modality of referral. RESULTS: Women with a false-positive result were less likely to return for a second screen as were women aged 70 and older and those living in regions of Ontario with fewer OBSP screening centres. However, there were minimal differences in reattendance behaviour by initial screen result for women screened at the OBSP centre with an assessment programme. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of breast screening and assessment services improved reattendance of women with false-positive screen results within an organised screening programme.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".