A Single-Centre Chart Review Exploring the Adjusted Association between Breast Cancer Phenotype and Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHODS: Using a retrospective chart review, we investigated the differences in survival and prognostic factors between patients with triple-negative breast cancer (tnbc) and those with non-tnbc. The review included 1018 breast cancer patients who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 in Essex, Kent, and Lambton counties in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that, although the unadjusted results suggested that patients with tnbc were more likely than patients with non-tnbc to die [hazard ratio (hr): 2.29; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.33 to 2.93], an adjusted survival analysis revealed no significant difference in overall survival between the groups (hr: 1.22; 95% ci: 0.63 to 2.39). The significant predictors of survival in the adjusted analysis were age, stage of cancer, and size of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support those of earlier reports, which suggest that presenting tumour size is the most important prognostic factor in tnbc. Investigations into unique screening methods to identify these tumours at an earlier stage and to prevent advanced-stage cancer in this patient subpopulation are necessary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".