MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404406184 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.15.24317400

Research on female breast and gynaecologic cancers in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4404406184 on OpenAlexaff
Anifa L. Kalay, Eric Madiata, Bienvenu Massamba Lebwaze, John Botomwito, Delly Tshiabo, Mireille L. Ntambwe

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsCégep de l'OutaouaisOttawa Public HealthCanadian Women's Health NetworkUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyMedicinePolitical scienceGynecologyOncologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the last decades, the incidence of female breast and gynecologic cancers has been increasing in sub-Saharan African countries including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Although DRC has taken some steps in addressing cancer issues, cancer control is not yet efficiently organized. The DRC national strategy for the fight against cervical and female breast cancers stresses that research conducted on female breast and cervical cancers in DRC is not leveraged to support the Ministry of Health. There is a clear and urgent need to identify the type and extend of research conducted in DRC about female breast cancer and cervical cancers to inform the operational cancer research agenda in DRC. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to describe current research and identify research gaps related to research on female breast and gynaecologic cancers in DRC Methods A scoping review was conducted through search of several electronic databases. We included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature resources reporting primary or secondary studies about female breast cancer or gynaecologic cancers in DRC. Results A total of 448 articles were retrieved. After screening, 32 articles were retained for review. Twenty-one articles pertained to cervical cancer, 12 to female breast cancer and 2 to vulva cancer. Five articles focused on several cancer types. There was no article retrieved for the other gynaecologic cancers (uterine, Fallopian tube and ovarian cancers). Most of the studies (60%) used a cross-sectional design. The studies were conducted in six provinces. Conclusion This scoping review has demonstrated significant gaps in female breast and gynaecologic cancer research in DRC. The review’s findings support the need for further research in all areas of the continuum of cancer care, the establishment of a clear and adapted research agenda, advocacy and providers’ capacity development.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0200.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→