Completeness of breast cancer operative reports in a community care setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it