MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Participant characteristics on an international NCIC CTG breast cancer prevention trial

2007· article· en· W2249194542 on OpenAlexaff
Harriet Richardson, D. Johnston, Paul E. Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExemestaneBreast cancerTamoxifenPlaceboGynecologyInternal medicineCancerCohortAnastrozoleOncologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1531 Background: Antagonizing estrogen with tamoxifen has set the precedent for preventing breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors reduce contralateral breast cancer in the adjuvant setting more than tamoxifen. The goal of MAP.3 is to determine whether exemestane reduces invasive breast cancers in post-menopausal women at risk for the disease. Methods: NCIC CTG MAP.3 is a randomized placebo controlled double blind trial of exemestane versus placebo. Recruitment began in September 2004 in North America and Spain. Criteria for entry on MAP.3 include: a Gail score of 1.66%; previous benign breast disease including LCIS; age over 60. The target sample size for the trial is 4560. Baseline characteristics of women enrolled thus far on MAP.3 were reviewed to determine whether their projected risk of breast cancer is consistent with the assumptions made in designing the trial. Results: Baseline characteristics are available on the 1784 women enrolled to MAP.3 to date. Over 70% of participants are over 60 years old (mean 64; SD=8.2 years) and the majority of the women are Caucasian (85%). The average 5-year risk of breast cancer is 2.7% (median, 2.2%). However, a greater proportion of women over 60 (30%) have a substantially lower Gail score (<1.66) compared to women less than 60 years of age (8%). Few women in the MAP.3 cohort have been enrolled on a basis of a history of prior breast atypical hyperplasia or LCIS (8%), or DCIS treated with mastectomy (2%). Nearly half the MAP.3 participants (45%) have at least one first degree relative with malignant breast cancer, and 7.5% of these women have 2 or more first degree relatives with the disease. Conclusions: The risk profile of the women on MAP.3 will determine the event rate and therefore the time to trial unblinding and analysis. This initial description of the MAP.3 population enrolled thus far indicates a slightly lower baseline breast cancer risk in comparison to the risk profile of those enrolled in previous breast cancer prevention trials with tamoxifen or raloxifene (NSABP P1, IBIS-1 and STAR). Reasons for this difference are being explored. [Table: see text]

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→