MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2888972176

TRANSITIONING TO FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY: THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY CHANGE ON MAMMOGRAPHY VOLUMES IN NOVA SCOTIA

2018· article· en· W2888972176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan Brydon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaMammographyNova (rocket)Field (mathematics)Digital mammographyMedicineGeographyArchaeologyEngineeringBreast cancerCancerMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, mammography has transitioned from analog screen-film to digital imaging. Reduced digital acquisition and processing time has the potential to increase screening throughput. This has not been evaluated in a “real-world” context. This project evaluated the transition to digital mammography on screening mammography throughput volumes and the proportion of diagnostic mammograms performed in Nova Scotia, Canada. A multi-group interrupted time-series design was used to assess the effects of technology change at ten fixed sites of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program between 2006 and 2014. Four sites experienced a statistically significant increase in screening throughput volumes following the introduction of digital mammography while the remaining sites experienced no significant change. There was no change in the proportion of diagnostic mammograms. The heterogeneity of results between sites suggests that unmeasured site-specific factors (departmental factors or demand) limited the potential for improved throughput following the transition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→