Letter to the Editor RE: “TWENTY FIVE YEAR FOLLOW-UP FOR BREAST CANCER INCIDENCE AND MORTALITY OF THE CANADIAN NATIONAL BREAST SCREENING STUDY: RANDOMISED SCREENING TRIAL”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some of us engaged in evaluating the efficacy of cancer screening were surprised at the high level of media attention given to a February 2014 report on the null results of a Cana-dian randomized trial of screening mammography (1) and at the weight given to these results in media summaries. In the article, Miller et al. (1) documented mortality from breast cancer over a 25-year period among 1) women aged 50–59 years who had been randomized either to 5 years of annual screening by means of clinical breast examination or to clini-cal examination plus mammography and 2) women aged 40– 49 years who had been randomized to receive only a single clinical examination or 5 years of annual clinical examination plus screening mammography. Women of all ages in both arms of the trial received instruction in breast self-examination. Why the surprise? First, the trial was, effectively, an eval-
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".