Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Risk in <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> Mutation Carriers: The PROSE Study Group
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data on the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer risk reduction in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations are limited, despite the clinical use of this risk-management strategy. Thus, we estimated the degree of breast cancer risk reduction after surgery in women who carry these mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred eighty-three women with disease-associated germline BRCA1/2 mutations were studied for the occurrence of breast cancer. Cases were mutation carriers who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and who were followed prospectively from the time of their center ascertainment and their surgery, with analyses performed for both follow-up periods. Controls were BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with no history of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy matched to cases on gene, center, and year of birth. Both cases and controls were excluded for previous or concurrent diagnosis of breast cancer. Analyses were adjusted for duration of endogenous ovarian hormone exposure, including age at bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy if applicable. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in two (1.9%) of 105 women who had bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and in 184 (48.7%) of 378 matched controls who did not have the procedure, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduced the risk of breast cancer by approximately 95% in women with prior or concurrent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and by approximately 90% in women with intact ovaries. CONCLUSION: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer in women with BRCA1/2 mutations by approximately 90%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it