Breast cancer mortality reduction in the western world: therapeutic versus diagnostic interventions. Implications for cancer care organization processes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract #6083 INTRODUCTION. Recent epidemiology data show a substantial Breast Cancer (BrCa) mortality reduction in the western countries over the last decade. The literature indicates that both Adjuvant systemic treatments (Adj. SystTh) and Screening mammography (ScrM) contribute, but their interaction is not clear. Our study examines if contribution of Adj. SystTh separate from ScrM could be more clearly identified; and also, - as a second objective, - if organization of cancer care could be correlated with BrCa mortality outcomes. METHODOLOGY: The mortality trends were compared among three Provinces of Canada with different Levels of Provincial Diagnostic and Therapy Guidelines (PDTG): LEVEL I: most uniform coordination of PDTG: British Columbia (Brit.Col.), with a single Provincial budget; earliest implementation of Provincial Community Oncology Program (since the mid-1970's); and a uniform start of Adj. SystTh (late 1970's); and of ScrM (late -1980's). LEVEL II: medium (Ontario). LEVEL III: least uniform (Atlantic Provinces)*. BrCa annual age-standardized mortality rates per 100,000/population were obtained from Statistics Canada for the years 1950-2004, and expressed relative to the year 1950 (the baseline). RESUTLS: The 1950 BrCa mortality rates were: 30.9 for Canada; 31.4 for BC; 30.7 Ontario; 26.1 for Atlantic Provinces*. CONCLUSIONS: While both Adj. SystTh and ScrM contribute towards recent BrCa mortality reduction, the British Columbia data indicate that the impact of Adj. SystTh antedates that of ScrM, at least by a decade. Our data support a correlation of BrCa mortality trends with the organization of cancer care: Effective implementation of PDTG (- i.e. incorporating early curative interventions into guidelines), will have a strong impact on mortality trends, particularly if executed a. ongoingly, b. uniformly, and c. across the whole population. Our data therefore indicate that early implementation of curative systemic therapy - or of any curative intervention - is essential, as their delay may prevent materialization of survival gains. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6083.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".