MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS): Mortality (MOR), survival (SUR), and mammographic screening (MS).

2015· article· en· W2596012784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Pai, Rachel J. Buchsbaum, Gary M. Strauss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverdiagnosisBreast cancerInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)RandomizationGynecologyRelative riskRandomized controlled trialCancerDemographyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e12614 Background: Among randomized trials on MS for breast cancer (BC), CNBSS is most controversial. Original CNBBS publications (CMAJ, 1992) suggest that MS may be detrimental to women age 40-49 and 50-59 yrs. Notwithstanding, CNBSS investigators interpret results in a recent paper (BMJ, 2014) as supporting that MS leads to BC overdiagnosis (OD). Objective here is to investigate the hypothesis that randomization (RAN) failure confounded interpretation of CNBSS. Methods: CNBSS1 compared annual MS and clinical breast examination (CBE) to a single CBE in women 40-49 yrs. CNBSS2 compared MS+CBE to CBE in women 50-59 yrs. We performed statistical analyses on published CNBSS data. Results: In CNBSS1, after 7 yrs, there were more invasive BCs in experimental group (EG) (RR = 1.2; p = 0.02). There were also more BCs with > 4+ nodes on prevalence screen (RR = 3.4; p = 0.01) & after 7 yrs (RR = 2.0; p = 0.004). While BC MOR was higher in EG (RR = 1.4; p = 0.3), higher MOR relates to higher incidence (INC) of poor prognosis BCs in EG. In CNBSS2, randomization failure appears to have contributed to negative results; eg BC INC (RR = 1.8; p = 0.001) and MOR (RR = 2.1; p = 0.047) were significantly higher in EG in prevalence screen. In their 2014 report, CNBSS investigators pool results of both studies. Among BCs detected during 5-yr experimental period, INC was 27% higher in EG (666 vs. 524, p < 0.0001). After 25 yrs, there were 180 vs. 171 BC deaths among these cases (RR = 1.1; p = 0.7). While MOR slightly favors controls, SUR was significantly superior in EG: 25-yr SUR was 71% in EG vs 63% in CG (RR = 0.8; p = 0.02). Among EG women whose cancer was detected by MS, 25-yr SUR was 80%. CNBSS investigators conclude that OD accounts for SUR/MOR discrepancy. Conclusions: OD does not account for SUR/MOR discrepancy in CNBSS. Higher rates of poor prognosis BCs in EG support that RAN failed to provide comparison groups with an equal probability of BC MOR. MOR comparisons do not provide an accurate measure of MS efficacy in CNBSS. Problems with RAN more plausibly account for these findings. The 2014 CNBSS report provides little evidence about MS effectiveness. Nonetheless, superior long-term SUV in EG supports that MS improved outcome for those randomized to MS in CNBSS.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.432
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→