MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380995060 · doi:10.2196/47110

Survival and Trends in Annualized Hazard Function by Age at Diagnosis Among Chinese Breast Cancer Patients Aged ≤40 Years: Case Analysis Study

2023· article· en· W4380995060 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Wang, Ting Luo, Zhongzheng Xiang, Ming-min He, Yuanyuan Zeng, Tian Yang, Xiaoyuan Wei, Siting Yu, Zelei Dai, Ning-yue Xu, Chen-feng Tan, Lei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerProportional hazards modelHazard ratioSurvival analysisMultivariate analysisInternal medicineYoung adultDemographyCancerOncologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young breast cancer patients are more likely to develop aggressive tumor characteristics and a worse prognosis than older women, and different races and ethnicities have distinct epidemiologies and prognoses. However, few studies have evaluated the clinical biological features and relapse patterns in different age strata of young women in Asia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore survival differences and the hazard function in young Chinese patients with breast cancer (BC) by age. METHODS: The patients were enrolled from West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The chi-squared test, a Kaplan-Meier analysis, a log-rank test, a Cox multivariate hazards regression model, and a hazard function were applied for data analysis. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS) were defined as end points. RESULTS: We included 1928 young BC patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2019. Patients aged 18 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 35, and 36 to 40 years accounted for 2.7% (n=53), 11.8% (n=228), 27.7% (n=535), and 57.7% (n=1112) of the patients, respectively. The diagnosis of young BC significantly increased from 2008 to 2019. Five-year LRFS, DMFS, BCSS, and OS for the entire population were 98.3%, 93.4%, 94.4%, and 94%, respectively. Patients aged 18 to 25 years had significantly poorer 5-year LRFS (P<.001), 5-year DMFS (P<.001), 5-year BCSS (P=.04), and 5-year OS (P=.04) than those aged 31 to 35, 26 to 30, and 36 to 40 years. The hazard curves for recurrence and metastasis for the whole cohort continuously increased over the years, while the BC mortality risk peaked at 2 to 3 years and then slowly decreased. When stratified by age, the annualized hazard function for recurrence, metastasis, and BC mortality in different age strata showed significantly different trends, especially for BC mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The annual diagnosis of young BC seemed to increase in Chinese patients, and the distinct age strata of young BC patients did not differ in survival outcome or failure pattern. Our results might provide strategies for personalized management of young BC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→