MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does the side of surgery and treatment have an effect on cardiovascular measurements in breast cancer survivors?

2014· article· en· W2907322496 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Keyserlingk, David H. Jones, Melisa Nestore, Sara Henophy, J Cousin, Alain Steve Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyChemotherapySurgeryBlood pressureSide effect (computer science)Hormone therapyCancerBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17674 Background: Determine if the surgery side and treatment side for a patient has an impact on cardiovascular measurements. Specifically if surgery/treatment on the left side (L) is associated with elevated blood pressure values compared to patients receiving surgery/ treatment on the right side (R). Methods: Measurements were taken on 723 Cancer survivor (CS) patients that had an intervention on the L side, 672 CS that had an invention on the R side and 53 CS patients that an intervention on both sides. Blood pressure (BP) was measured in all. CS patients were stratified into 8 different groups according to treatment and results presented in Table below: G1 surgery-only (n= 32(R), n= 50(L)), , G2- surgery and chemotherapy (n= 12(R), n=14(L)), G3 - surgery and radiotherapy(n= 45(R), n=48(L)), G4- surgery and hormone therapy(n= 54(R), n=61(L)), G5- surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone therapy(n= 215(R), n=246(L)), G6- surgery, radiotherapy and hormone(n= 204(R), n=191(L)), G7- surgery chemotherapy and radiotherapy(n= 71(R), n=84(L)), G8- surgery chemotherapy and hormone therapy(n= 35(R), n= 27(L)). A one-way ANOVA was performed followed by Dunnet’s post-hoc analysis, significance was set at P < .05. Results: (See Table.) Conclusions: Patients that had surgical and treatment interventions on their L side tended to have poorer outcome measures than patients that had similar interventions on their R side. Right diastolic BP mmHg Left diastolic BP mmHg Right systolic BP mmHg Left systolic BP mmHg Right MAP mmHg Left MAP mmHg G1 75.56± 13.07 76.64± 7.33 128.18± 20.42 129.96± 16.96 93.63 ±14.68 94.31 ± 9.43 G2 74.25± 9.62 76.79± 7.62 126.33± 14.25 129.14± 12.24 91.49 ± 8.36 94.11 ± 8.33 G3 73.17± 9.74 75.47± 7.98 122.98 ± 16.30 124.66± 13.97 89.65 ± 10.55 89.84 ± 15.88 G4 76.48± 9.61 75.70± 10.82 129.00 ± 16.30 128.26± 16.29 93.87 ± 9.74 93.12 ± 11.21 G5 76.71± 10.63 78.05± 10.11 126.73 ± 17.32 127.42± 16.36 92.85 ± 13.38 93.65± 13.89 G6 76.84± 11.03 76.58± 8.81 132.88 ± 18.79 131.31± 14.74 94.46 ± 15.45 94.20± 12.18 G7 75.68 ± 9.53 77.35± 9.88 127.63 ± 20.05 128.79± 17.13 92.88 ± 11.76 94.37± 11.22 G8 75.20 ± 9.62 81.33± 12.28 124.26 ± 14.39 131.92± 21.62 91.46 ± 9.39 98.09± 14.23 Abbreviations: MAP, mean arterial pressure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207