Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am pleased to consider Dr Weiss' comments about my editorial. I was indeed aiming to be somewhat provocative and am pleased that I succeeded. Certainly my comment that these randomized trials “clearly provide a definite answer” is debatable. One must consider, however, that the Stockholm trial, which ran concurrently with the HABITS trial and which showed no negative effect of hormonal replacement therapy (HRT), was closed to further accrual based on the statistically significant detrimental effects seen in the HABITS trial at interim analysis. It is my view that the negative results seen in HABITS, together with the underlying biology/physiology, which would strongly suggest that HRT could be harmful, have, together, probably closed the door to the possibility of further randomized trials in this area. Dr Weiss makes an important point in suggesting that the difference between progestin-containing HRT and estrogen alone could be an important one. This is also supported by randomized data from the Women's Health Initiative study. Whether another group of investigators, their research ethics boards, and patients would be willing to mount and carry out an additional randomized study in this area, however, seems dubious. Although I agree that the outcomes of breast cancer mortality are most definitive, I disagree with Dr Weiss' suggestion that breast cancer recurrence is not a valid endpoint. It is hard to be biased in ascertaining breast cancer recurrence, which is generally quite clear. Furthermore, breast cancer recurrence is clearly a harbinger of ultimate breast cancer mortality but of course occurs sooner and more frequently in the early years of follow-up. In a trial this small and with only an additional 2 years of follow-up, the fact that no additional deaths have occurred following recurrences is not surprising because many women live much longer than 2 years after recurrence of breast cancer. I am pleased that Dr Weiss agrees with me that interventional studies with robust control design should be implemented when feasible. However, as mentioned above, I think that another randomized trial of HRT in this setting might prove difficult.
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 | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.029 |
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".