MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adherence to osteoporosis screening guidelines in seniors with breast cancer treated with anti-estrogen therapy: A population-based study.

2015· article· en· W2515167615 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Henault, Sue-Ling Chang, Sinizana Dumitra, Richard Krämer, Nancy E. Mayo, Ari N. Meguerditchian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerOsteoporosisPopulationCohortOncologyCancerPhysical therapyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

72 Background: Aromatase inhibitors (AI) improve recurrence and survival rates in women ≥ 65 with hormone-receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). However, AI’s are associated to increased bone demineralization in a population already at risk for osteoporosis. Bone mineral densitometry (BMD) is therefore recommended at treatment start, to minimize treatment-related toxicity. This study assesses compliance to BMD recommendations in older BC survivors treated with an AI and identifies predictors of non-adherence to guidelines. Methods: A population-based historical prospective cohort study was conducted in Quebec (Canada), where universal health insurance provides medical and pharmaceutical services. All women ≥ 65 with incident stage I, II or III BC (1998-2012) were identified from the provincial cancer registry. Administrative claims were accessed to track receipt of BMD (±12 months from treatment start) and potential predictors: age, economic status, Charlson comorbidity index, breast and axillary surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, bisphosphonate use, adherence to anti-estrogen therapy (AET), physician specialty and having a primary care physician (PCP). Multivariate logistic regression was performed using generalized estimating equations to identify predictors of BMD, adjusting for clustering within physicians. Results: Of 16,480 patients, 36.1% had a BMD at AET start. This increased to 58.4% for women on AI. Factors predicting baseline BMD non-use in AI patients were: older age (OR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36 – 0.49), lower annual income (OR 0.57; 95%CI, 0.47 – 0.70), not having a PCP (OR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.68 – 0.86), chemotherapy and radiotherapy outside of guidelines (OR 0.80; 95%CI, 0.66 – 0.96 and 0.69; 95%CI, 0.54 – 0.87, respectively), non-surgical specialist managing AET (OR 0.81; 95%CI, 0.67 – 0.98), older physicians (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 – 0.81), and non-adherence to AET (OR 0.69; 95%CI 0.60-0.79). The same predictors persisted in patients on any AET. Conclusions: Bone health management in seniors receiving AET is suboptimal. Factors related to underutilization of BMD can be easily identified and used to optimize chronic care of older BC survivors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→