MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200827070 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107354

Data describing the poor outcome associated with a breast cancer diagnosis in the post-weaning period

2021· article· en· W3200827070 on OpenAlexaff
Hanne Lefrère, Giuseppe Floris, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Patrick Neven, Ellen Warner, Elyce Cardonick, Fedro A. Peccatori, Sibylle Loibl, Charlotte Maggen, Hanne De Mulder, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, Diether Lambrechts, Liesbeth Lenaerts, Frédéric Amant

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersKWF KankerbestrijdingFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekKom op tegen KankerNational Council for Eurasian and East European Research
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineBreastfeedingObstetricsPregnancyGynecologyEpidemiologyCancerMetastasisBreast feedingRetrospective cohort studyOncologyDiseaseInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) - which according to new data, can extend to 5–10 years after the birth - are estimated to represent 35–55% of all cases of breast cancer in women younger than 45 years. Increasing clinical evidence indicates that PPBC represents a high-risk form of breast cancer in young women with an approximately 2-fold increased risk for metastasis and death. Yet, the exact mechanisms that underlay this poor prognosis are incompletely understood and, hence, it is unknown why postpartum breast cancer has an enhanced risk for metastasis or how it should be effectively targeted for improved survival. This article is an accompanying resource of the original article entitled “Breast cancer diagnosed in the post-weaning period is indicative for a poor outcome” and present epidemiological data that compare standard prognostic parameters, first site of metastatic disease and survival and metastatic rates in young women with primary invasive breast cancer diagnosed within two years postpartum (PP-BC), in young women diagnosed during pregnancy (Pr-BC) and nulliparous women (NP-BC). Via an international collaboration of 13 centres participating in the International Network on Cancer, Infertility and Pregnancy (INCIP), retrospective data of 1180 patients with primary invasive breast cancer, aged 25–40 years and diagnosed between January 1995 and December 2017 were collected. In particular, tumour-, patient, and therapy-related characteristics were collected. Furthermore, patient files were reviewed thoroughly to assess, for each parity, if and for how long breastfeeding was given. For PP-BC patients, breastfeeding history was used to differentiate breast cancers identified during lactation (PP-BCDL) from those diagnosed post-weaning (PP-BCPW). Primary exposures were prior childbirth or no childbirth, time between most recent childbirth and breast cancer diagnosis, time between cessation of lactation and breast cancer diagnosis and time between breast cancer diagnosis and metastasis or death. Distribution of standard prognostic parameters and first site of distant metastasis among study groups was determined applying fisher's exact, chi-squared, One-Way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests or logistic regression models, where applicable. The risks for metastasis and death were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. A subgroup analysis was performed in PP-BCPW patients that never lactated (PP-BCPW/NL), lactated ≤3 months (PP-BCPW/Lshort) or lactated >3 months (PP-BCPW/Llong).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207