Workshop report: identification of research needs breast cancer etiology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A workshop to evaluate the scientific evidence for the etiologic associations between modifiable lifestyle and environmental risk factors and to identify areas for future research in breast cancer etiology was sponsored jointly by the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative in May, 2001. Reviews of the scientific evidence in these topics were commissioned and an expert panel convened to consider the reviews and make recommendations for research. The panel concluded that there was substantial evidence to proceed with additional research in several areas of breast cancer etiology. Particular support for future research for several lifestyle and environmental risk factors including alcohol, diet, physical activity, anthropometric factors, hormonally active agents and occupational exposures was identified. Several emerging hypotheses for breast cancer etiology were also considered and recommendations made in these areas. Specific areas for future consideration included: insulin-like growth factors, pharmaceuticals, viruses, psychosocial factors, and functional polymorphisms. The panel also identified common themes for future research including: studies of exposures across the life cycle; research in populations with unusual exposure levels; consideration of effect modification; development of improved exposure assessment methods and use of intermediate endpoints; separation of disease subtypes by hormone receptor status, stage and tumour markers; and consideration of biological mechanisms in breast cancer etiology.
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 | 0.049 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.015 |
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".