The Cost-Effectiveness of Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Screening in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current literature on female breast cancer screening is largely focused on the health outcomes that result from screening. There is comparatively little data on the cost-effectiveness of the screening. Methods: This systematic review sought to identify all studies published within the last 10 years that analyzed the cost-effectiveness of mammography-based female breast cancer screening policies in Canada. Results: Seven studies were included, and four were applicable to the average-risk Canadian women. Triennial screening for average-risk women aged 50–69 years was the most cost-effective in terms of cost per QALY. The use of MRI with mammography for women with the BRCA1/2 mutation was cost-effective, while annual mammography-based screening for women with dense breasts was cost-ineffective. Conclusion: Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of mammography-based screening within Canadian populations are few in numbers and have heterogeneous methodologies. The existing data suggest that Canada’s current screening policy to screen average-risk women aged 50–74 years, biennially or triennially is cost-effective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".