MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Factors Influence Decision-Making about Breast Cancer Chemoprevention among High-Risk Women?

2017· letter· en· W2763266246 on OpenAlex
Katherine D. Crew

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsRaloxifeneBreast cancerTamoxifenMedicineSelective estrogen receptor modulatorCancer preventionOncologyCancerEstrogen receptorGynecologyInternal medicineRisk factors for breast cancerRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estrogen exposure is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer development. Chemoprevention with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), such as tamoxifen and raloxifene, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce breast cancer incidence by up to 50% among high-risk women. Despite the strength of this evidence, there is significant underutilization of chemoprevention. Given the relatively few modifiable breast cancer risk factors, SERM use provides an important strategy for the primary prevention of this disease. Understanding factors which influence chemoprevention decision-making will inform efforts to implement breast cancer risk assessment and increase chemoprevention uptake in clinical practice. Cancer Prev Res; 10(11); 609–11. ©2017 AACR. See related article by Holmberg et al., p. 625

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.383 · 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