MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503815376 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2016.07.012

Effects of a regional guideline for completion axillary lymph node dissection in women with breast cancer to reduce variation in surgical practice: A qualitative study of physicians' views

2016· article· en· W2503815376 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Ann O’Brien, Miriam Tsao, Sylvie D. Cornacchi, Nicole Hodgson, Susan Reid, Marko Šimunović, Som D. Mukherjee, Barbara Strang, Lehana Thabane, Peter Lovrics

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineMultidisciplinary approachBreast cancerSentinel lymph nodeFamily medicineAxillary Lymph Node DissectionCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently the impact of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy on significant outcomes has been questioned, leading to variation in surgical practice. To address this variation, a multidisciplinary working group created a regional guideline for cALND. We explored the views and experiences of surgeons, medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs) in a qualitative study that examined guideline implementation in practice. METHODS: The Pathman framework (awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence) informed the interview guide design and analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with MOs, ROs and surgeons and transcribed. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 members of the study team and analyzed. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-eight physicians (5 MO; 6RO; 17S) of 41 (68% of those approached) were interviewed. Ten of 11 (91%) hospital sites (54% community; 46% academic) and all 4 cancer clinics within the region were represented. Twenty-seven physicians (96%) were aware of the guideline, with all physicians reporting agreement and general adherence to the guideline. Most physicians indicated nodal factors, age and patient preference were key components of cALND decision-making. Physicians from all disciplines perceived that the guideline helped reduce variation in practice across the region. There were concerns that the guideline could be applied rigidly and not permit individual decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians identified breast cancer as an increasingly complex and multidisciplinary issue. Facilitators to guideline implementation included perceived flexibility and buy-in from all disciplines, while individual patient factors and controversial supporting evidence may hinder its implementation.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207