MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2145926154

EDITORIALS Biomarkers in Benign Breast Disease: Risk Factors for Breast Cancer

2015· article· en· W2145926154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan G. Hilsenbeck

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineBreast diseaseDiseaseRisk factors for breast cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benign breast diseases are both common and heterogeneous. Some types (usual and atypical hyperplasias) are weak but well-established risk factors (1) and probably precursors for breast cancer (2). Other types (e.g., sclerosing adenosis, papillomas, and fibroadenomas) also may be associated with a slightly el-evated risk, although the evidence is less compelling (3–5). These benign lesions are defined by their histologic features, which are insufficient to distinguish breast tissue destined to develop cancer. An article by Rohan et al. (6) in this issue of the Journal describes an interesting study that evaluates the abilities of cer-tain biomarkers to better discriminate risk in patients with be-nign breast disease. Using a nested case–control study design based on the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS), Rohan et al. evaluated p53 and c-erbB-2 abnormalities by im-munohistochemistry in benign breast tissue of patients who later developed breast cancer (cases; n 4 71) compared with matched patients who did not (controls: n 4 291 for c-erbB-2; n 4 288 for p53). Alterations of the p53 tumor suppressor gene and c-erbB-2 oncogene are very common in breast cancer (7,8), which was the rationale for focusing on these markers as potential risk factors in this study. Most p53 abnormalities in breast cancer are mis-sense point mutations resulting in nuclear accumulation of pre-sumably nonfunctional protein (9). Most alterations of c-erbB-2 are gene amplifications that are highly associated with overex-pression of the oncoprotein at the cell membrane (10,11). Im-munochemistry was well suited to screening for p53 accumula-tion and c-erbB-2 overexpression in the archival tissue samples available in the study by Rohan et al. (6). Evaluating the risk of a relatively rare disease (e.g., breast cancer) in a relatively healthy population (e.g., patients with benign breast disease) can be difficult for a number of reasons, and the nested case–control design used in the study by Rohan et al. was an effective strategy to compensate for some of these difficulties (12). By sampling controls matched to breast cancer cases from the entire cohort of all NBSS enrollees with benign breast disease, the study had power nearly equivalent to that of the entire cohort (n 4 4888) but evaluated far fewer subjects (n

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.014

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→