Corrigendum: Cancer data quality and harmonization in Europe: The experience of the BENCHISTA Project – International Benchmarking of Childhood Cancer Survival by Stage
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Corrigendum: Cancer Data Quality and Harmonization in Europe: The experience of the BENCHISTA Project – International Benchmarking of Childhood Cancer Survival by Stage * Correspondence: angela.lopez@ucl.ac.uk; benchista@istitutotumori.mi.itKeywords: same as original articleCorrigendum on: Lopez-Cortes A, Didonè F, Botta L, Hjalgrim LL, Jakab Z, Canete Nieto A, Stiller C, Zeller B, Gatta G, Pritchard-Jones K and The BENCHISTA Project Working Group (2023) Cancer data quality and harmonization in Europe: the experience of the BENCHISTA Project – international benchmarking of childhood cancer survival by stage. Front. Oncol. 13:1232451. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1232451 Incorrect Supplementary Material In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Appendix (Number 3). The Project Working Group was displayed according to initial known information. A concern related to the Polish representative affiliation was raised after submission. After internal review and discussion with the relevant involved parties, an agreement on the amendment to the name/affiliation of the Polish representative and clarification to the source of data collection was reached. Furthermore, other changes to the Appendix 3 were incorporated as these were communicated by other representatives from the Project Working Group after the article deadline/submission. Supplementary appendix in published article and correct material statement displayed. Text CorrectionIn the published article, the first paragraph is correct. A phrase is required to be added in the first paragraph of the material and methods section to clarify that not all of the population-based cancer registries that contributed data to the project are constituted in the same way. A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, at end of first paragraph. This sentence previously stated:“All European population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) included in the EUROCARE studies were invited to participate in the BENCHISTA Project. Additionally other non-European PBCRs from Australia, Canada, Brazil, and Japan confirmed their contribution to the project. A great number of PBCRs are checked for quality indicators by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) based in four dimensions of quality: comparability, validity, timeliness, and completeness (16, 17).”The corrected sentence appears below:“All European population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) included in the EUROCARE studies were invited to participate in the BENCHISTA Project. Additionally, other non-European PBCRs from Australia, Canada, Brazil, and Japan confirmed their contribution to the project. A great number of PBCRs are checked for quality indicators by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) based on four dimensions of quality: comparability, validity, timeliness, and completeness (16, 17). Not all PBCRs have a government mandate. Some are coordinated by the National Society for Paediatric Haematology-Oncology and/or register all cases diagnosed at all hospitals authorised for childhood cancer treatment in the relevant country, with the aim of achieving population coverage.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,127 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,087 | 0,047 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».