MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590649043 · doi:10.21037/cco.2017.02.02

Milestone clinical trials of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)

2017· review· en· W2590649043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Priya Rastogi, D. Lawrence Wickerham, Charles E. Geyer, Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Thomas B. Julian, Norman Wolmark

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMilestoneClinical trialGynecologic oncologyOncologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)CancerAdjuvantClinical OncologyAdjuvant therapyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) has made significant contributions in reducing the extent of breast surgery and in improving outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer through the conduct of large randomized clinical trials evaluating local and systemic therapy. In 2014, the NSABP merged with two other US National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative groups, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG), to form NRG Oncology. The combined organization has 218 member institutions with more than 600 affiliate centers located throughout the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and other international sites. Over the past half century, the NSABP has entered more than 150,000 women into clinical trials of breast cancer treatment and breast cancer prevention. Many of these trials have been instrumental in establishing new standards of care for patients with breast cancer.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.445
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Clinical OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207