MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390473712

Use of bone-modifying agents among breast cancer patients with bone metastasis: evidence from oncology practices in the US

2018· article· en· W4390473712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
McGrath LJ, Overman RA, Diane Reams, Karynsa Cetin, Alexander Liede, Narod SA, Brookhart MA, Hernandez RK

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyBone metastasisInternal medicineCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leah J McGrath,1 Robert A Overman,1 Diane Reams,1 Karynsa Cetin,2 Alexander Liede,3 Steven A Narod,4 M Alan Brookhart,1 Rohini K Hernandez2 1NoviSci, LLC, Durham, NC, USA; 2Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 3Amgen Inc, South San Franscisco, CA, USA; 4Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Purpose: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are recommended for women with bone metastasis from breast cancer to prevent skeletal-related events. We examined the usage patterns and identified the factors associated with the use of BMAs (denosumab and intravenous bisphosphonates) among women in the US. Patients and methods: Electronic health records from oncology clinics were used to identify women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer between 2013 and 2014. Patients were excluded if they had recently used a BMA or had concurrent cancer at an additional primary site. The incidence of BMA initiation, interruption, and reinitiation were estimated using competing risk regression models. A generalized linear model was used to estimate risk factors for treatment initiation and interruption. Results: There were 589 women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer. By 1 year, 68% of these patients (95% CI: 64%, 71%) had initiated treatment with a BMA. Denosumab and zoledronic acid were the most commonly used agents, whereas pamidronate was used infrequently. Young women were more likely to initiate a BMA than older women (adjusted risk difference: 6.4 [95% CI: 1.5, 10.9]). Of the 412 patients who initiated a BMA, 46% (95% CI: 41%, 51%) experienced an interruption within 1 year. Seventy-four percent (95% CI: 68%, 79%) of patients who interrupted their treatment had reinitiated therapy within 1 year of interruption. Conclusion: The majority of women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer initiate a BMA within 1 year of diagnosis, but a large proportion, particularly among the elderly, do not use these therapies. Keywords: bone-modifying agents, breast cancer, bone metastasis, treatment patterns, electronic health records, denosumab, zoledronic acid, pamidronate

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→