MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bone and cardiac status in 10-year survivors of breast cancer

2006· article· en· W3012266322 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen Trudeau, H. Lavina A. Lickley, L. Zhang, Gillian Hawker, Steven A. Narod, Carol Sawka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOsteoporosisBone mineralInternal medicineBody mass indexCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

681 Background: A prospective case-control study was carried out on 425 women treated for breast cancer who survived for 10 years without evidence of recurrence (cases) matched for age, race and length of follow-up from diagnosis to 425 women with benign breast disease followed for 10 or more years (controls). For cases, only 23% received chemotherapy and 33% hormone therapy. Methods: We examined multiple indicators of physical and emotional well-being and report here the results pertaining to cardiac and bone health. Bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed using DXA at the lumbar spine and hip, expressed as gm/cm2, and classified as normal/low bone mass/osteoporosis. Cardiac health was assessed using 10 year cardiovascular risk, calculated as low, moderate or high based on age, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, smoking history and blood pressure (according to the calculation published by Genest J et al. CMAJ 2003). Treatment received for both bone and cardiac disease was evaluated. The comparison of cases and controls was assessed using the Wilcoxon non-parametric or Chi-squared tests. Results: Body mass index (BMI) was significantly greater for cases versus controls (27.5 ± 2.4 vs 26.7 ± 4.9; p = 0.034). The mean BMD (corrected for weight) was 1.08 ± 0.05 g/cm2 at the spine for cases, compared with 1.11 ± 0.06 g/cm2 for controls (p <0.0001). Among those with osteoporosis at follow-up, 30% of cases compared with 35% of controls had been treated with bisphosphonates; 10% cases and 55% of controls with osteoporosis had received HRT. There were no significant differences in 10-year cardiovascular risk between the cases and controls. Overall, 78% were low, 18% moderate, and 4% high risk. Cholesterol-lowering medications were prescribed to only ≤23% of the moderate and high risk groups in both cases and controls. Conclusions: Despite greater BMI, cases had lower BMD and were less likely to have received treatment for osteoporosis than were controls. 10 year cardiovascular risk was not significantly different in the cases versus controls despite the greater use of HRT in the controls. Both groups appear to be undertreated with cholesterol-lowering medications by today’s standards of care. These findings can help to inform the content of survivorship programs. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.398 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→