MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123548899

Waiting times from abnormal breast screen to diagnosis in 7 Canadian provinces.

2001· article· en· W2123548899 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ivo A. Olivotto, Christina Bancej, Vivek Goel, Judy Snider, R. G. McAuley, Brittany Irvine, L Kan, Doug Mirsky, Margaret Sabine, R McGilly, Judy Caines

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyBreast cancer screeningBreast cancerObstetricsPhysical examinationCancer screeningCancerMammographyGynecologyRadiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delay to breast cancer diagnosis following an abnormal screening result is associated with anxiety and personal disruption. We assessed the patterns and timeliness of diagnostic follow-up after breast cancer screening for women with abnormal results who attended organized screening programs in 7 provinces. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Database, we identified 203,141 women aged 50-69 years who underwent screening in 1996 through provincially organized breast cancer screening programs in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. We prospectively followed women with an abnormal screening result through to the completion of the assessment process. We evaluated the waiting times from screening examination to first assessment, from screening examination to first imaging, from screening examination to diagnosis and from first assessment to diagnosis for 13,958 women, stratified according to screening program, mode of detection, whether a biopsy was performed and whether cancer was diagnosed. RESULTS: We observed considerable variations between and within programs in the time to diagnosis. The median time from screening examination to first assessment was 2.6 weeks. The median time from screening examination to diagnosis was 3.7 weeks; this time increased to 6.9 weeks for women undergoing biopsy. Even when no biopsy was performed, 10% of the women waited 9.6 weeks or longer for a diagnosis, as compared with 15.0 weeks or longer for 10% of the women undergoing biopsy. Among the women who had a biopsy, the use of core biopsy was associated with a shorter median time to diagnosis than was open biopsy, and those found to have cancer had shorter waiting times than women with benign biopsy findings. INTERPRETATION: Women undergoing assessment of an abnormal breast cancer screening result waited many weeks for a diagnosis, especially when a biopsy was performed. To ensure that targets for timeliness, adopted nationally in 1999, are realized, improved models of care or dissemination of existing efficient techniques to reach a diagnosis will be needed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207