MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207