MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Cancer Treatment Protocols: Systematic Review of the Last 35 Years

2017· article· en· W2610703165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Filipe Leal Portilho, Ralph Santos‐Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerAlternative medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineFamily medicinePathologyInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the main leading type of cancer for women around the world and is responsible for 522,000 deaths per year worldwide. In order to reduce this number, clinicians and researchers are always looking for new strategies and protocols. However, the treatment for breast cancer is challenging and requires as much information as possible. To this end, we conducted a review of all protocols used for breast cancer treatment in the last 35 years with the objective to help clinicians to choose the best treatment possible available in their region. Many of the protocols are international references, and for that reason have been used in many countries like USA and Europe. The data, depicted in tables, may be helpful for clinicians worldwide and researchers to better understand the evolution of breast cancer protocols such as helping make daily routine decisions.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207