The Value of All-Cause Mortality as a Metric for Assessing Breast Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although screening mammography has been demonstrated to contribute to reducing mortality due to breast cancer, some have suggested that reduced all-cause mortality should constitute the burden of proof for effectiveness. Using a microsimulation model of the development, detection, and treatment of breast cancer, it is straightforward to demonstrate that this is an unrealistic expectation for trials of practical size and period of observation, even where the reduction of breast cancer mortality is substantial. Estimates of all-cause mortality will depend not only on the efficacy of the screening intervention but also on the alignment between the age distribution of the effect of screening on reduction of deaths and that of the other major causes of death. The size of a randomized trial required to demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality will, therefore, depend on the length and timing of the observation period and will typically be at least 10 times larger than the size of a trial powered to test for a reduction in deaths due to breast cancer. For breast cancer, which represents a small fraction of overall deaths, all-cause mortality is neither a practical nor informative metric for assessing the effectiveness of screening.
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 | 0.077 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".