Signed family physician reminder letters to women overdue for screening mammography: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether signed family physician reminder letters to women overdue for screening mammography prompts rescreening. METHODS: A randomized double-blind trial conducted in 2013 among women aged 51-73 and overdue for screening by 6-24 months. The study was carried out by the publicly funded British Columbia Cancer Agency Screening Mammography Program, which routinely sends standard reminder postcards to women who are due for mammography. Participating family physicians signed letters for the overdue women in their practices. The overdue women were mailed either the signed reminder letter and the standard reminder postcard, or the standard reminder postcard alone. The primary endpoint was the proportion of overdue women that attended a screening mammogram appointment within six months of mailing the study letters. The analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: In total, 822 family physicians participated and 5638 women were randomized. Mammography attendance by six months after mailing the reminders was 34.4% (947/2749) for women in the signed family physician letter arm, compared with 24.0% (660/2749) for women in the control arm (p < 0.0001). Adjusting for age, number of previous screening mammograms, and months overdue, women in the signed letter arm were significantly more likely to return for screening than women in the control arm (RR 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.30-1.54). CONCLUSION: A signed family physician reminder letter improved mammography attendance for women who were overdue for screening mammography.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".