Changes in mammography screening in Ontario and Alberta following national guideline dissemination: an interrupted time series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Task Force) was reconstituted in 2009 to develop and disseminate evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support preventive practices in primary care. In 2011, the Task Force aimed to provide a recent review of evidence to inform breast cancer screening practices. In keeping with the use of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the Task Force reviewed available evidence using a systematic review to develop screening guidelines for women at average risk of breast cancer. The Task Force developed weak recommendations based on moderate to low quality evidence. The guidelines also highlighted the need for clinicians to help patients make a decision that is consistent with the patient’s informed values and preferences. The “Changes in mammography screening in Ontario and Alberta following national guideline dissemination: an interrupted time series analysis” study is focused on evaluating the impact of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care’s dissemination strategy by investigating mammography use in Ontario and Alberta before and after the strategy was implemented. This study was conducted to determine using an interrupted time series the impact of the 2011 Task Force breast cancer screening guidelines on rates of mammography screening by age group in Ontario and Alberta.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".