Should women 40 to 49 years of age be offered mammographic screening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is already accepted that women with an increased risk of developing breast cancer benefit from earlier annual screening. I believe that mammographic screening of all women in their 40s constitutes good practice. Seventy percent of breast cancer is diagnosed in women without any risk factors. So when should screening begin? Many believe that women younger than 50 very rarely get breast cancer. In 2000, 19 200 new breast cancers were diagnosed in Canada; 17% were in women 40 to 49 years of age; 24% were in women 50 to 59 years of age.¹ The arbitrary cutoff age of 50 used in early studies was based on the hypothesis that menopause changed the development and mammographic detectability of breast cancer, but there is nothing magical about the age of 50. In addition, breast cancer incidence has increased in recent decades. The number of patients diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 increased more than threefold between 1953 through 1959 and 1993 through 1999. 2 In 1995, due to changing demographics, more breast cancers were diagnosed among women in their 40s than among women in their 50s.³
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".