MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A decision analysis of the effect of avoiding axillary lymph node dissection in low risk women with invasive breast carcinoma

2000· article· en· W6921763868 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymph nodeRadiation therapyAxillary Lymph Node DissectionPopulationDiseaseAxillary DissectionLymphadenectomyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(BACKGROUND).\n\nEvidence that avoiding axillary lymph node dissection (AxD) strikes an appropriate balance between morbidity and recurrence risk in patients with invasive breast carcinoma generally is anecdotal and without a formally quantified basis. The current study presents a decision analysis of the difference in 5‐year disease free survival (DFS) rate between treatment scenarios with and without routine AxD.\n\n(METHODS).\n\nTo derive quantitative estimates of the effect of avoiding AxD on 5‐year DFS, the authors examined outcomes for women undergoing 2 treatment scenarios: AxD or no AxD with adjuvant therapy decisions based on risk factors in the primary tumor. Eligible patients belonged to 2 lymph node metastases risk groups: low (patients without palpable lymph nodes and lymphatic or vascular invasion [LVI] negative tumors ≤ 0.5 cm in greatest dimension) and moderate (patients with mammographically detected, LVI negative tumors, between 0.6‐2.0 cm in greatest dimension or patients with palpable LVI negative tumors between 0.6‐1.0 cm in greatest dimension with nonpalpable lymph nodes). Along with observed data regarding treatment and recurrence, the authors employed estimates of the efficacy of chemotherapy, tamoxifen, and regional radiation therapy derived from published randomized trials to estimate the 5‐year DFS rate for treatment scenarios with and without AxD.\n\n(RESULTS).\n\nPatients in the low risk group had a 5% risk of lymph node metastases. In these women, eliminating AxD and treating no patients with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen resulted in a < 1% decrease in the 5‐year DFS rate. Patients in the moderate risk group had a 10% risk of lymph node metastases. Eliminating AxD and treating only those women with Grade 3 tumors > 1 cm in greatest dimension with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen resulted in a 1.8% decrease in the 5‐year DFS rate. However, if all patients in this group were treated with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen and no AxD, the 5‐year DFS rate increased by 2.7%.\n\n(CONCLUSIONS).\n\nIn patients with a low risk of lymph node metastases, it was estimated that eliminating AxD may result in only minimal changes in the estimated 5‐year DFS rate.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicMedical Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207