Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Cardio-oncology Rehabilitation (CORE) Referral in Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among Canadian women. Due to advancements in cancer prevention, treatment and screening, more breast cancer survivors are living longer, for whom, survivorship issues have become a significant concern. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is recognized as the leading non-cancer cause of death in this population, and is the number one cause of death in older cancer survivors (≥65 years of age). The American Heart Association recently endorsed the use of multi-modal exercise-rehabilitation programs, similar to cardiac rehabilitation (CR), to help mitigate CVD risk in breast cancer survivors. This approach has been coined as cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE). Despite this, there are no clinical guidelines on who should be prioritized for CORE among people with cancer and referral of all patients would quickly overwhelm current CR programs. Against this background, we aimed to identify which early-stage breast cancer survivors should be prioritized for CORE referral until greater program capacity is available. Novel measures that were explored included, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography derived global longitudinal strain, cardiopulmonary fitness, measures of vascular function and structure, and clinical data that is prognostic and diagnostic for CVD events in breast cancer survivors. Our research revealed that women treated with potentially cardiotoxic therapies and the presence of ≥2 CVD risk factors, vascular impairments, history of cardiotoxicity, diastolic impairment and impaired GLS (
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".