Using Simulation to Model and Validate Invasive Breast Cancer Progression in Women in the Study and Control Groups of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies I and II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modeling breast cancer progression and the effect of various risk is helpful in deciding when a woman should start and end screening, and how often the screening should be undertaken. METHODS: We modeled the natural progression of breast cancer using a hidden Markov process, and incorporated the effects of covariates. Patients are women aged 50-59 (older) and 40-49 (younger) years from the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies. We included prevalent cancers, estimated the screening sensitivities and rates of over-diagnosis, and validated the models using simulation. RESULTS: We found that older women have a higher rate of transition from a healthy to preclinical state and other causes of death but a lower rate of transition from preclinical to clinical state. Reciprocally, younger women have a lower rate of transition from a healthy to preclinical state and other causes of death but a higher rate of transition from a preclinical to clinical state. Different risk factors were significant for the age groups. The mean sojourn times for older and younger women were 2.53 and 2.96 years, respectively. In the study group, the sensitivities of the initial physical examination and mammography for older and younger women were 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, and the sensitivity of the subsequent screens were 0.78 and 0.53, respectively. In the control groups, the sensitivities of the initial physical examination for older and younger women were 0.769 and 0.671, respectively, and the sensitivity of the subsequent physical examinations for the control group aged 50-59 years was 0.37. The upper-bounds for over-diagnosis in older and younger women were 25% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present work offers a basis for the better modeling of cancer incidence for a population with the inclusion of prevalent cancers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".