Canadian breast cancer guidelines: Have they made a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A principal objective of the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer was to reduce the variation in the way that breast cancer was being treated. To evaluate whether this goal has been reached, we examined variations among surgeons for 4 measures of surgical care and tested for differences in province-wide rates and in variations among surgeons before and after the guidelines were released. METHODS: We studied a population-based cohort of 7022 women living in Manitoba in whom breast cancer was diagnosed from 1995 to 2003 inclusive. Demographic, tumour and treatment information was obtained from the Manitoba Cancer Registry. We examined 4 measures of care: breast-conserving surgery, axillary assessment in invasive disease, axillary node dissection in noninvasive disease and the adequacy of axillary node dissection. Generalized linear models were used to test for significant variations in care among surgeons and to test for differences in province-wide rates and variations in these rates among surgeons before and after introduction of the guidelines. RESULTS: We found clinically significant variations in the province-wide rates of all 4 measures examined. These variations were statistically significant for all measures except axillary node dissection in noninvasive disease. No significant differences in either the province-wide rates or in variations in these rates among surgeons before and after introduction of the guidelines were found for any of the measures. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that the Canadian breast cancer guidelines are not meeting their stated objective. New strategies for guideline dissemination and implementation may be required.
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 | 0.019 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".