MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489087584 · doi:10.1503/cjs.000516

Predicting which patients actually receive radiation following breast conserving therapy in Canadian populations

2016· article· en· W2489087584 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Keegan Guidolin, Michael Lock, Lucie Richard, Gabriel Boldt, Muriel Brackstone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyFamily medicineMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Canadian women with breast cancer may choose breast conserving therapy as their course of treatment, requiring both breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy. However, more than 15% of Canadian women fail to receive the appropriate radiation therapy, putting them at increased risk for recurrence. Age, distance from their radiation therapy centre and stage of disease affect patients' likelihood of receiving prescribed radiation therapy. We propose a nomogram that allows physicians to predict which patients will and will not receive radiation. This nomogram, once validated, could be used to guide decision making when choosing between breast conserving therapy and mastectomy as the treatment course and thereby change the practice of breast cancer management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207