MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193066862 · doi:10.3322/caac.21319

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

2015· review· en· W2193066862 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn D. Runowicz, Corinne R. Leach, N. Lynn Henry, Karen S. Henry, Heather Mackey, Rebecca Cowens-Alvarado, Rachel Cannady, Mandi L. Pratt‐Chapman, Stephen B. Edge, Linda A. Jacobs, Arti Hurria, Lawrence B. Marks, Samuel J. LaMonte, Ellen Warner, Gary H. Lyman, Patricia A. Ganz

Bibliographic record

VenueCA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionAmgenTakeda OncologyAccurayAmerican Cancer SocietySun Nuclear CorporationGenentechCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCelgeneGlaxoSmithKlineBreast Cancer Research FoundationPfizer
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerGuidelinePsychosocialCancerSurvivorship curveFamily medicineOncologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations739
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCA A Cancer Journal for CliniciansSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207