MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ECOG-ACRIN tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (EA1151).

2020· article· en· W3032403368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Etta D. Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Martin J. Yaffe, Melissa A. Troester, Ilana F. Gareen, Laura C. Collins, Amarinthia Curtis, Elodia B. Cole, Ruth C. Carlos, Kathy D. Miller, Christopher Comstock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMammographyPopulationOncologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialBreast cancer screeningClinical endpointRandomizationBiopsyCancerAtypiaGynecologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS1597 Background: This randomized trial is intended to determine whether tomosynthesis (TM) should replace the current standard for breast cancer (BC) screening, digital mammography (DM). It is hypothesized that the population of women assigned TM screening for 3-5 rounds will have fewer advanced cancers than the population assigned to DM screening. Methods: 164,946 women, ages 45 to 74 years who present for screening mammography and consent to participate will be enrolled across 150 sites in the US, Canada and abroad. Women will be randomized to TM or DM. The frequency and number of screening examinations over a five year period will vary based on menopausal status and whether they have specific risk factors, including - hormone use, family history of BC, deleterious genes, prior benign breast biopsy with diagnosis of LCIS or atypia any kind, or dense breasts. Blood and buccal cells will be collected from as many enrolled women as are willing to provide the samples. All breast biopsies during the trial will undergo gene expression analysis for the PAM50 and other progression pathways (PAM50-plus). All subjects enrolled will be followed long term for at least eight years. The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants who have an advanced breast cancer diagnosed at any time within 4.5 years of randomization in to the trial. Secondary endpoints include measures of diagnostic and predictive performance; rates of recall, biopsy, and interval cancers, prevalence of breast cancer subtypes, and tumor subtype based on PAM50-plus analysis. As of January 17th 2020, there are 104 sites open and 21,452 women enrolled in the trial. The DSMC last reviewed the trial in June 2019 and suggested that the trial continue as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03233191.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207