Incorrect Word in Results Section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Reply The suggestion that modern treatment, especially adjuvant systemic therapy, might render breast cancer screening unnecessary was put to the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening by expert witnesses, as was the counter view that breast cancer screening, by achieving earlier diagnosis, could make systemic therapy more effective.This issue was discussed in the full report in which the Panel concluded that there was no convincing evidence that one or the other view was more likely to be correct. 1Given the uncertainty, the benefits of treatment and screening are best viewed as independent.The dates when the trials were conducted does not provide convincing evidence.Dr Jatoi refers to "later trials," the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1 and -2 2,3 and the UK Age trial, 4 showing less benefit.But the Canadian trials were started in 1980, similar to the Swedish trials included in the meta-analysis that were started in 1976 to 1982.Jatoi is correct that the UK Age trial did start 10 years later (in 1990).But the risk reduction of 17% in that trial was little different from the 20% risk reduction derived from the meta-analysis of all 11 trials.Jatoi is more convinced by the observational studies than am I.The Panel read much of this extensive literature and took evidence from several of the leading authors. 1 The Panel noted the fierce controversy that surrounds studies that compare areas or examine time trends (in large measure because of the unresolved biases in comparisons) and due to questions over how assumptions were made.The contemporary case-control studies, in general, show larger beneficial effects of screening than do the older trials.Similarly, incidence-based mortality studies show breast cancer screening to be effective.But the Panel was not convinced that these modern studies were free of bias.Hence, the Panel relied on the trials as providing more reliable evidence for an estimate of mortality reduction.That said, the obser-vational studies support the hypothesis that screening continues to be beneficial in an era of improved treatment.
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 | 0.017 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.270 | 0.206 |
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".