MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022049138 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.7531

Letter to the Editor: Radiation for Prior DCIS is a Risk Factor for Death From Invasive Breast Cancer

2020· letter· en· W3022049138 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Sopik, Vasily Giannakeas, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyRisk factorCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the article by Li et al 1 regarding the impact of prior radiotherapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on the prognosis of women with invasive breast cancer. The authors report that the risk of breast cancer mortality following invasive breast cancer among women with a prior diagnosis of DCIS is 1.7 times higher if the DCIS was treated with lumpectomy 1 RT versus lumpectomy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.18-2.45; P5.005). The authors suggest that this finding may have implications for the use of RT in the initial treatment of DCIS. However, we propose another interpretation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207