MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609928112 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2017.0044

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 1.2017

2017· article· en· W2609928112 on OpenAlexaff
William J. Gradishar, Benjamin O. Anderson, Ronald Balassanian, Sarah L. Blair, Harold J. Burstein, Amy Cyr, Anthony Elias, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon H. Giordano, Matthew P. Goetz, Lori J. Goldstein, Steven J. Isakoff, Janice A. Lyons, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Meena S. Moran, Ruth O’Regan, Sameer A. Patel, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth Reed, Kilian Salerno, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Amy M. Sitapati, Karen L. Smith, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, Melinda L. Telli, John H. Ward, Dorothy A. Shead, Rashmi Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersKyowa Hakko KirinAstellas PharmaClovis OncologyNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkNovocureJazz PharmaceuticalsAstraZenecaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationCelldex TherapeuticsGenomic Health
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyCancerMedical physicsSystemic therapyIntensive care medicineOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates/changes to the surgical axillary staging, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy recommendations for hormone receptor-positive disease in the 1.2017 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer. This report summarizes these updates and discusses the rationale behind them. Updates on new drug approvals, not available at press time, can be found in the most recent version of these guidelines at NCCN.org.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.044

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations542
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207