Development and validation of case-finding algorithms for recurrence of breast cancer using routinely collected administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrence is not explicitly documented in cancer registry data that are widely used for research. Patterns of events after initial treatment such as oncology visits, re-operation, and receipt of subsequent chemotherapy or radiation may indicate recurrence. This study aimed to develop and validate algorithms for identifying breast cancer recurrence using routinely collected administrative data. METHODS: The study cohort included all young (≤ 40 years) breast cancer patients (2007-2010), and all patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2012-2014) in Alberta, Canada. Health events (including mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, biopsy and specialist visits) were obtained from provincial administrative data. The algorithms were developed using classification and regression tree (CART) models and validated against primary chart review. RESULTS: Among 598 patients, 121 (20.2%) had recurrence after a median follow-up of 4 years. The high sensitivity algorithm achieved 94.2% (95% CI: 90.1-98.4%) sensitivity, 93.7% (91.5-95.9%) specificity, 79.2% (72.5-85.8%) positive predictive value (PPV), and 98.5% (97.3-99.6%) negative predictive value (NPV). The high PPV algorithm had 75.2% (67.5-82.9%) sensitivity, 98.3% (97.2-99.5%) specificity, 91.9% (86.6-97.3%) PPV, and 94% (91.9-96.1%) NPV. Combining high PPV and high sensitivity algorithms with additional (7.5%) chart review to resolve discordant cases resulted in 94.2% (90.1-98.4%) sensitivity, 98.3% (97.2-99.5%) specificity, 93.4% (89.1-97.8%) PPV, and 98.5% (97.4-99.6%) NPV. CONCLUSION: The proposed algorithms based on routinely collected administrative data achieved favorably high validity for identifying breast cancer recurrences in a universal healthcare system in Canada.
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 | 0.026 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".