MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161496090

Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline.

2001· article· en· W2161496090 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert E. Myers, Mary Johnston, K.I. Pritchard, Mark Levine, Tom Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Breast cancerAsymptomaticGuidelineContext (archaeology)RadiologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer develops in over 7000 women each year in Ontario. These patients will all undergo some staging work-up at diagnosis. The Breast Cancer Disease Site Group of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative reviewed the evidence and indications for routine bone scanning, liver ultrasonography and chest radiography in asymptomatic women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was combined with a consensus interpretation of the evidence in the context of conventional practice. RESULTS: There were 11 studies of bone scanning reported between 1972 and 1980, involving a total of 1307 women; bone scans detected skeletal metastases in 6.8% of those with stage I breast cancer, 8.8% with stage II and 24.5% with stage III. A total of 5407 women participated in 9 studies of bone scanning reported between 1985 and 1995; in these studies, bone scans detected skeletal metastases in only 0.5% of women with stage I disease, 2.4% with stage II and 8.3% with stage III. Among 1625 women in 4 studies of liver ultrasonography reported between 1988 and 1993, hepatic metastases were detected in 0% of patients with stage I disease, 0.4% with stage II and 2.0% with stage III. Among 3884 patients in 2 studies of chest radiography published in 1988 and 1991, lung metastases were detected in 0.1% of those with stage I, 0.2% with stage II and 1.7% with stage III. False-positive rates ranged from 10% to 22% for bone scanning, 33% to 66% for liver ultrasonography and 0% to 23% for chest radiography. The false-negative rate for bone scanning was about 10%. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations apply to women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who have undergone surgical resection and who have no symptoms, physical signs or biochemical evidence of metastases. Routine bone scanning, liver ultrasonography and chest radiography are not indicated before surgery. In women with intraductal and pathological stage I tumours, routine bone scanning, liver ultrasonography and chest radiography are not indicated as part of baseline staging. In women who have pathological stage II tumours, a postoperative bone scan is recommended as part of baseline staging. Routine liver ultrasonography and chest radiography are not indicated in this group but could be considered for patients with 4 or more positive lymph nodes. In women with pathological stage III tumours, bone scanning, liver ultrasonography and chest radiography are recommended postoperatively as part of baseline staging. In women for whom treatment options are restricted to tamoxifen or hormone therapy, or for whom no further treatment is indicated because of age or other factors, routine bone scanning, liver ultrasonography and chest radiography are not indicated as part of baseline staging.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations129
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedFrench-language works237,207