The Role of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score® Assay in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Node-Positive Breast Cancer: The Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(RS) Assay. While the utility of the assay was initially demonstrated among node-negative patients, recent studies have also demonstrated the assay's prognostic and predictive value in node-positive patients. In Canada, the RS assay is reimbursed by provincial health insurance plans, but not all provinces have approved the use of the assay for patients with node-positive disease. Here, we provide an overview of the clinical factors that influence physician recommendation of the RS assay and, alternatively, the impact of the RS assay on patient treatment decisions in Canada. We performed a comprehensive review of the impact of the assay upon physician treatment decisions and cost in node-positive breast cancer patients within Canada and other countries. Furthermore, we evaluated biomarkers that can predict the RS result, in addition to other genomic assays that predict recurrence risk among node-positive patients. Overall, the 21-gene RS assay was shown to be a cost-effective tool that significantly reduced the use of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".