MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415570000 · doi:10.30683/1927-7229.2025.14.10

Breast Organ-Specific Surgical Practice: Perspectives of Indian Surgeons

2025· article· W4415570000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arpan Choudhury, Neelam Ahirwar, Rukmini Bezbaruah, Sukruti Dave

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageBreast cancerBreast surgeryClinical PracticeGovernment (linguistics)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Cancer care is changing rapidly, with many countries embracing organ-specific specialization to offer more focused and effective treatment. In India, however, most surgeons continue to practice in a more generalized way, and we still do not fully understand how they feel about shifting toward subspecialized care. This question becomes especially important in breast cancer—the most common cancer among Indian women—where dedicated expertise can make a real difference in early detection, treatment quality, and patient survival. This study aims to explore how Indian surgeons view breast organ-specific practice, their willingness to adopt it, and the challenges they foresee. Methods: Cross sectional study conducted in July 2024 in 100 surgeons of India using a self-administered google form questionnaire. Responses were evaluated and assessed. Results: Out of 100 responses, 45% were from private/corporate setting, 39% from government institutes. 30.6% were from west, 27.6% from east, 22.4% from south and 19.4% from north zone. 55% were from surgical oncology, 36.4% were from general surgery. As per the study, breast (31%) and gastro-intestinal surgery (29%) were the subspeciality of choice. 47.5% agreed that they would be interested in breast specific surgery practice if proper training was available. 30.9% considered this to be less stressful with fewer complications. Majority (48%) thought that lack of patient awareness about breast cancer specific surgeon was the biggest disadvantage of organ specific practice. 22% considered it to be technically undemanding. 51% and 27.1% suggested that a dedicated and recognized training is required and organ specific practices are required at hospitals/institutions respectively. Notably, female surgeons were more likely to choose breast surgery compared to males (50% vs. 20%), a difference that was statistically significant (p = 0.015; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.50–12.25) Conclusion: Breast organ specific oncosurgery practice is still uncommon in India. More dedicated training programs are required along with adequate employment opportunities to fill the lacunae in promoting the same.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207