MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499032998 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511794995.024

Breast cancer and pregnancy: critical review of the effects of prior and subsequent pregnancy on the prognosis of young women with breast tumor

2011· book-chapter· en· W2499032998 on OpenAlexaff
Nava Siegelmann‐Danieli, Ronen Loebstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyBreast cancerBreastfeedingChemotherapyFirst trimesterCancerObstetricsOncologyGynecologyFetusPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews the current information and controversies regarding different aspects of the administration of chemotherapy during pregnancy. It also reviews the available experience with the most common anticancer regimens as well as each chemotherapeutic agent. Chemotherapy during the first trimester may increase the risk of spontaneous abortions, fetal death, and major congenital malformations. The teratogenic effects depend on the dosage, time of administration, and cumulative exposure to the chemotherapeutic agent. The choice of treatment for the pregnant patient with cancer has become even more complicated due to the increasing use of targeted anticancer therapies. J. I. Durodola reported that an infant that had received cyclophosphmide became neutropenic from breastfeeding. The chapter summarizes the important reports concerning different cytotoxic agents, and presents each medication according to its pharmacological group and time of publication. The chapter also provides a brief description of the study and the pregnancy outcome.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207