MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125745332 · doi:10.3747/co.21.1605

Use of hormonal therapy in senior breast cancer patients treated with or without radiotherapy

2013· article· en· W2125745332 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Stanimira Krotneva, Aliya Ramjaun, Kristen Reidel, Tewodros Eguale, Nora Trabulsi, Nancy E. Mayo, Robyn Tamblyn, Ari N. Meguerditchian

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkCancer Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioBreast cancerConfidence intervalMedical prescriptionInternal medicinePharmacyProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyHormonal therapyCancerFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Breast cancer treatment guidelines state that radiotherapy (rt) can reasonably be omitted in selected women 70 years of age and older if they take adjuvant endocrine therapy (aet) for 5 years. We aimed to assess persistence and adherence to aet in women 70 years of age and older, and to examine differences between rt receivers and non-receivers. METHODS: Quebec's medical service and pharmacy claims databases were used to identify seniors undergoing breast-conserving surgery (1998-2005) and initiating aet. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of aet non-persistence. RESULTS: Of 3180 women who initiated aet (mean age: 77.5 years), 28% did not receive rt. During the subsequent 5 years, 32% of patients who initiated aet did not persist, 2% filled only a single prescription, and 22% switched medications. Compared with rt receivers, non-receivers discontinued more often (35.5% vs. 30.1%) and earlier (1.4 years vs. 1.6 years). They also became nonadherent earlier (medication possession ratio < 80% at year 3 vs. at year 5). Predictors of nonpersistence included rt omission [hazard ratio (hr): 1.26; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.09 to 1.46]; age (hr per decade increase: 1.15; 95% ci: 1.01 to 1.31); new medications (hr per medication: 1.01; 95% ci: 1.00 to 1.02); and hospitalizations during aet, (hr per hospitalization: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.05 to 1.11). In a subanalysis of rt non-receivers, significant predictors included hospitalizations (hr: 1.07; 95% ci: 1.02 to 1.12) and medications at aet start (hr: 0.94; 95% ci: 0.91 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal use of aet was observed in at least one third of women. In rt non-receivers, aet use was worse than it was in rt receivers. Initiation of new medications and hospitalizations increased the risk of non-persistence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207