Screening Sensitivity and Sojourn Time From Breast Cancer Early Detection Clinical Trials: Mammograms and Physical Examinations
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: To estimate sensitivities of breast cancer screening modalities and preclinical duration of the disease from eight breast cancer screening clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Screening programs invariably lead to diagnosis of disease before signs or symptoms are present. Two key quantities of screening programs are the sensitivity of the disease detection modality and the mean sojourn time (MST). The observed screening histories in a periodically screened cohort make it possible to estimate these quantities of interest. We applied recently developed statistical methods to data from eight randomized breast cancer screening trials to estimate the sensitivities of early detection modalities and MST. Moreover, when a screening trial involved two screening modalities, our methods enabled the estimation of the individual sensitivity of each screening modality. RESULTS: We analyzed breast cancer data from several screening trials and have relatively complete data from the Health Insurance Plan (HIP), Edinburgh, and two Canadian studies. The screening sensitivity for mammography, physical examination, and MST were, respectively, HIP: 0.39, 0.47, and 2.5 years; Edinburgh: 0.63, 0.40, and 4.3 years; Canadian (age 40 to 49 at entry): 0.61, 0.59, and 1.9 years; Canadian (age 50 to 59 at entry): 0.66, 0.39, and 3.1 years. CONCLUSION: The public debate on early breast cancer detection is mainly centered on mammograms. However, the current study indicates that a physical examination is of comparable importance. Cautious interpretation of trial differences is required as a result of various experimental designs and the age dependency of screening sensitivity and MST.
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 | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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