Screening for breast cancer -is there an alternative to mammography?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the continuing increase in mammary cancer incidence and in many cases also mortality across the world, as well as the difficulty with primary prevention, the question of whether screening for early detection is effective is of prime importance. If there is a real benefit in terms of reduced mortality then attention should clearly be focused on the modality which should be recommended in different resource settings. In the developed world where mammography is generally available the results are less than conclusive. It seems possible that there is a segment of breast cancer benefited both by screening and by treatment, and that far from these effects being additive, they affect the same spectrum of cases, so that as treatment improves, the benefit we can expect to see from screening falls. In the Asian Pacific setting, randomized trials on the basis of the cost and benefit should be a high priority. However, the lesson from all programmes of breast screening, is that for success, attention has to be paid to all aspects of the programme, compliance with screening, high quality screening tests, quality in the referral, diagnosis and treatment process, as well as adequate follow-up.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".