MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123951314 · doi:10.2217/17455057.5.1.63

Oophorectomy for Breast Cancer Prevention in Women with <i>Brca1</i> Or <i>Brca2</i> Mutations

2009· review· en· W2123951314 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Metcalfe

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOophorectomyProphylactic SurgeryMedicineProphylactic MastectomyBreast cancerTamoxifenMastectomyPsychosocialGynecologyOncologyCancer preventionCancerInternal medicineHysterectomySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to the significant breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, women with these mutations have several options available to them by which to reduce the risk of breast cancer. These include surgical (prophylactic mastectomy and prophylactic oophorectomy) and medical (chemoprevention) options. The breast cancer risk reductions associated with these options range from a 90% risk reduction associated with prophylactic mastectomy to approximately 50% with oophorectomy or tamoxifen. This article reviews the efficacy of prophylactic oophorectomy for the prevention of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. The predictors of uptake of the preventive surgery will be discussed, in addition to the psychosocial implications of the surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s HealthSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207