Completeness of breast cancer operative reports in a community care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The narrative operative report represents the traditional means by which breast cancer surgery has been documented. Previous work has established that omissions occur in narrative operative reports produced in an academic setting. The goal of this study was to determine the completeness of breast cancer narrative operative reports produced in a community care setting and to explore the effect of a surgeon's case volume and years in practice on the completeness of these reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standardized retrospective review of operative reports produced over a consecutive 2 year period was performed using a set of procedure-specific elements identified through a review of the relevant literature and work done locally. RESULTS: 772 operative reports were reviewed. 45% of all elements were completely documented. A small positive trend was observed between case volume and completeness while a small negative trend was observed between years in practice and completeness. CONCLUSION: The dictated narrative report inadequately documents breast cancer surgery irrespective of the recording surgeon's volume or experience. An intervention, such as the implementation of synoptic reporting, should be considered in an effort to maximize the utility of the breast cancer operative report.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".