Appropriate Treatment Receipt after Breast-Conserving Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast-conserving surgery (bcs) and radiation therapy (rt) are the standard of care for early breast cancer, although some women receive ipsilateral mastectomy or adjuvant tamoxifen, both of which can be appropriate alternatives to rt. Objectives of the present study were to determine the proportion of women who are treated appropriately after bcs and to identify factors associated with non-receipt of rt. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Ontario data linked at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences to examine 33,718 patients who received bcs during 2004-2010. Primary outcome was rt receipt. The ipsilateral mastectomy rate and patient, surgeon, and setting variables were measured. Results: Of the study patients, 86.1% received either rt or completion mastectomy; in the cohort less than 70 years of age, 90.8% received rt or completion mastectomy. Among patients less than 70 years of age, 3 risk factors for non-receipt of rt were identified: age less than 46 years, treatment in a non-academic institution, and earlier year of initial bcs. Additionally, in the overall cohort, rt non-receipt was associated with high comorbidity, more than 40 km to the cancer centre, income quintile, and breast care specialization. Conclusions: In Ontario, 90.8% of patients less than 70 years of age are appropriately treated for early breast cancer; approximately 1 in 10 do not receive rt or completion mastectomy. Based on those findings, women less than 46 years of age might be at increased risk of recurrence and death because of incomplete treatment. It also appears that academic centres more effectively treat breast cancer; however, breast cancer care appears to be improving over time in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".