MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027335902 · doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0388-9

Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement

2020· review· en· W3027335902 on OpenAlexafffund
Nora Pashayan, Antonis C. Antoniou, Urška Ivanuš, Laura J. Esserman, Douglas F. Easton, David French, Gaby Sroczynski, Per Hall, Jack Cuzick, D. Gareth Evans, Jacques Simard, Montserrat García‐Closas, Rita K. Schmutzler, Odette Wegwarth, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Sowmiya Moorthie, Sandrine de Montgolfier, Camille Baron, Zdenko Herceg, Clare Turnbull, Corinne Balleyguier, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Jelle Wesseling, David Ritchie, Marc Tischkowitz, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Daniel Reisel, Andres Metspalu, Thomas Callender, Harry J. de Koning, Peter Devilee, Suzette Delaloge, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Martin Widschwendter

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Reviews Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of California, San FranciscoUnicancerMax-Planck-Institut für BildungsforschungCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de CáncerUniversiteit AntwerpenTartu ÜlikoolInstitut National Du CancerRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversidad San Pablo - CEULeids Universitair Medisch CentrumFondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le CancerKarolinska InstitutetUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtLunds UniversitetQueen Mary University of LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGentofte HospitalUniversitätsklinikum KölnCentre International de Recherche sur le CancerUniversity of TwenteUniversity of MelbourneNational Cancer InstituteUniversität HeidelbergUniversity of TorontoWorld Health OrganizationCancer Research UKUniversity College LondonUniversity of LeicesterUniversiteit LeidenVanderbilt University Medical CenterRadboud UniversiteitHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeClalit Health ServicesQIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteInstitut Gustave-RoussyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumUniversité LavalCancer Care OntarioUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaUniversitat de GironaDivision of Mathematical SciencesEuropean Commission
KeywordsBreast cancerCancer preventionMedicinePsychological interventionBreast cancer screeningMammographyCancerFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations439
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Reviews Clinical OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207