MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175356586 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00522

Breast cancer in Indigenous women living in Canada: a scoping review protocol

2021· review· en· W3175356586 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Cole, Brian Hutton, Candyce Hamel, Jean‐Marc Bourque, Angel Arnaout, Mark Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerIndigenousPopulationMedicineHealth careCancerBreast cancer screeningGrey literatureFamily medicineGerontologyMEDLINEMammographyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe and synthesize the current state of knowledge pertaining to breast cancer in Indigenous women living in Canada. We will examine the continuum of breast cancer care in this population, including breast cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer in Indigenous women is an evolving health care concern in Canada, with mounting evidence suggesting that these women present at later stages, and have poorer survival rates compared with the general population. A comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge of breast cancer in this population is required. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The population of interest will include Indigenous women living in Canada aged 18 years or older who have been screened or require screening for breast cancer, or who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. "Indigenous" will include women who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Eligible sources must report on breast cancer risk factors, tumor characteristics, health systems access, screening, diagnosis, treatment, surveillance, or breast cancer outcomes. We will include analytic studies, surveys, case series, reviews, meta-analyses, and gray literature. METHODS: We will conduct a search of five health sciences databases for relevant studies published in English or French from database inception onward. We will utilize dual independent screening for titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and will utilize a similar method for gray literature sources. Data will be synthesized using a narrative approach, and outcomes of interest will be compared with data from the general breast cancer population. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xkde5.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.408
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207