MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554000772 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.004

Moving forward with obesity research in breast cancer

2016· editorial· en· W2554000772 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Elisa Lohmann, Pamela J. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
FundersBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOverweightHazard ratioInternal medicineObesityBody mass indexGynecologyConfidence intervalOncologyRelative riskMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity has been associated with higher incidence of both post-menopausal, primarily receptor positive, and premenopausal triple negative breast cancer (BC) risk [1]. Secondary analysis of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial showed that obese versus non-obese postmenopausal women have a higher overall risk of BC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.40–1.79) and more advanced stage, larger tumor size (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67–2.69) than normal weight women [2]. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis confirmed an increased risk of all-cause mortality for BC patients with body mass index (BMI) > 30mg/m2 at BC diagnosis versus normal weight patients (relative risk (RR), 1.41; 95% CI, 1.29–1.53) [3].

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0110.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207