A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Utility of AJCC 8th Edition Cancer Staging System for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to study the clinical utility of AJCC 8th edition prognostic stage system for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: According to the AJCC 8th edition cancer staging system, a total of 784 patients with breast cancer diagnosed by Department of Breast Surgery in Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from January 2011 to June 2016 were analyzed in anatomic and prognostic stage. RESULTS: Five hundred and five (64.4%) patients prognosis staging changed compared with anatomic stage. Among them, 63 (33.5%) patients were in stage I, 295 (73.8%) patients in stage II, and 128 (72.7%) patients in stage III according to anatomic stage, respectively. The distribution and variety of the anatomic and prognostic stage differ in intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AJCC 8th edition cancer staging system is an important prognostic factor for disease outcome of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".