Recurrence and Mortality after Breast-Conserving Surgery without Radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast-conserving surgery (bcs) and radiation therapy (rt) are the standard of care for early breast cancer; studies have demonstrated that adjuvant rt confers a protective effect with respect to recurrence, although no randomized trials have shown a survival benefit. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Ontario data linked through ices to examine patients treated for breast cancer between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2014. The primary outcome was death or recurrence. Outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not receive rt. Results: The total cohort size was 26,279. The hazard ratios (hrs) for various outcomes were significantly higher for patients who did not receive rt than for patients who did: recurrence or death combined [hr: 2.49; 95% confidence interval (ci): 2.25 to 2.75], recurrence (hr: 2.33; 95% ci: 1.91 to 2.84), and death (hr: 2.28; 95% ci: 2.03 to 2.56). The hr for death was 1.81 (95% ci: 1.65 to 1.99) for patients having stage ii cancer compared with those having stage i disease. The hr for death was 1.97 (95% ci: 1.74 to 2.22) for patients having high comorbidity compared with those having little comorbidity. Conclusions: Adjuvant rt carries a protective effect with respect to recurrence and survival in patients with early-stage breast cancer. That survival benefit has not been appreciated in previous randomized trials and underscores the importance of rt as a component of breast cancer treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".