MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143899676 · doi:10.1093/jnci/94.15.1143

Randomized Trial of Breast Irradiation Schedules After Lumpectomy for Women With Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer

2002· article· en· W2143899676 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLumpectomyMedicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyMastectomyConfidence intervalDose fractionationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryOncologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast irradiation after lumpectomy is an integral component of breast-conserving therapy that reduces the local recurrence of breast cancer. Because an optimal fractionation schedule (radiation dose given in a specified number of fractions or treatment sessions over a defined time) for breast irradiation has not been uniformly accepted, we examined whether a 22-day fractionation schedule was as effective as the more traditional 35-day schedule in reducing recurrence. METHODS: Women with invasive breast cancer who were treated by lumpectomy and had pathologically clear resection margins and negative axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive whole breast irradiation of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over 22 days (short arm) or whole breast irradiation of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 35 days (long arm). The primary outcome was local recurrence of invasive breast cancer in the treated breast. Secondary outcomes included cosmetic outcome, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Cosmetic Rating System. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: From April 1993 through September 1996, 1234 women were randomly assigned to treatment, 622 to the short arm and 612 to the long arm. Median follow-up was 69 months. Five-year local recurrence-free survival was 97.2% in the short arm and 96.8% in the long arm (absolute difference = 0.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.5% to 2.4%). No difference in disease-free or overall survival rates was detected between study arms. The percentage of patients with an excellent or good global cosmetic outcome at 3 years was 76.8% in the short arm and 77.0% in the long arm; the corresponding data at 5 years were 76.8% and 77.4%, respectively (absolute difference = -0.6%, 95% CI = -6.5% to 5.5%). CONCLUSION: The more convenient 22-day fractionation schedule appears to be an acceptable alternative to the 35-day schedule.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations665
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207