MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract ES4-2: Treatment morbidity and quality of life considerations

2019· article· en· W2944312218 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachytherapyRadiation therapyBreast cancerCosmesisToxicityOncologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Partial breast irradiation was introduced to reduce treatment times, improve convenience of radiotherapy and reduce radiation exposure to the breast and surrounding normal tissues. A number of techniques have been developed including interstitial brachytherapy, single catheter-based brachytherapy, intraoperative therapy, and 3 dimensional conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy. The toxicity profile of partial breast irradiation has been dependent on the different techniques used. In general acute toxicity has been less than that observed with whole breast irradiation, particularly for intraoperative approaches where radiotherapy is delivered at the time of breast conserving surgery. Reports of late toxicity have varied. The majority of trials have observed no increase in late toxicity with interstitial brachytherapy and intraoperative treatment when compared to whole breast irradiation. Some studies of 3D conformal radiotherapy have reported an increase in late radiation toxicity such as telangiectasia of the skin and subcutaneous fibrosis of the breast. Limited data are available on cosmetic outcome and quality of life. Again, results to date have varied with some studies reporting similar cosmetic results and others indicating an increase in adverse cosmesis with partial breast irradiation when compared to whole breast irradiation. This presentation will review mature results from completed trials and discuss radiobiological inferences and implications for clinical decision making. Citation Format: Whelan T. Treatment morbidity and quality of life considerations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr ES4-2.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→