RESPONSE: Re: Randomized Trial of Breast Irradiation Schedules After Lumpectomy for Women With Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We agree with Drs. Pearcey and Lees that our study was directed to women with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (1). To fully understand the economic benefits of the adoption of the shorter schedule of breast irradiation, a formal cost-minimization analysis should be performed. It is important to note, though, that most radiation therapy resources are involved in the delivery of daily treatments rather than the costs for consultation or planning (2). Although Drs. Pearcey and Lees estimate that the shorter radiation therapy schedule would apply to 20% of all their breast cancer treatments, in a city the size of Edmonton this would amount to a substantial number of women with breast cancer. In locations where 60% of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer have lymph node-negative disease and the rate of breast-conserving surgery is 70%, the shorter fractionation schedule could be applicable for up to 40% of newly diagnosed women.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.011 |
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".