Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The process results of the 8 December 2025 searches of Google, OVID, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for the keywords “tumor” and “time to discovery”. The initial number of records identified was 168: Google Scholar (n = 13), OVID (n = 8), PubMed (n = 32), Scopus (n = 62), and Web of Science (n = 53). Supplementary File S1 records the process. The following is the breakdown of the exclusionary process, box-by-box. Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, after the “Records identified”, the “Records removed before screening” does not differentiate by the databases. Supplementary File S1 provides the individual identification. The Duplicate records removed in total were (n = 10). By databases, they were OVID—duplicated with itself—(n = 3), Scopus—duplicated with PubMed—(n = 2), and Web of Science—duplicated with Scopus—(n = 5). Those that were not an empirical study were (n = 6). They are from Google Scholar (n = 3), OVID (n = 1), and Web of Science (n = 2). Those not peer-reviewed were from Google Scholar (n = 3), leaving the “Records screened” (n = 149). The excluded records were then those studies of non-human subjects (n = 18). By database: PubMed (n = 2), Scopus (n = 4), and Web of Science (n = 12), leaving the “Reports sought for retrieval” (n = 131). The “Reports not retrieved” were (n = 8). Google had (n = 1) unretrievable, PubMed (n = 5), and Scopus (n = 2), resulting in the “Reports assessed for eligibility” (n = 123). The “Reports excluded” regarded no tumor or no time to discovery. “No tumor” was (n =10). The breakdown by database was Google Scholar (n = 2), PubMed (n = 7), and Scopus (n = 1). Those lacking time to discovery were (n = 87). By database, they were OVID (n = 2), PubMed (n = 18), Scopus (n = 45), and Web of Science (n = 22), leaving the “Studies included in review” (n = 26). Of these, Google Scholar represents (n = 4), OVID (n = 2), PubMed (n = 0), Scopus (n = 8), and Web of Science (n = 12). Of the (n = 26) “Studies included in review”, there were also (n = 26) “Reports of included studies”. Although the search of each database was for the phrase “time to discovery”, some of the included studies lacked that exact wording. Nevertheless, upon examining the content of the article, the determination was that there was an equivalent phrase to “time to discover”. Two OVID results used the time of discovery. For Scopus results, similar phrases were judged to be the following: (1) time to transformation, (2) time to affect, (3) time to biochemical recurrence, (4) time from sample date, (5) time of a given scan, (6) time interval from baseline, (7) time of diagnosis, and (8) time from diagnosis to death or relapse. For Web of Science, the phrases were as follows: (1) time of recurrence, (2) time of confirmed tumor diagnosis, (3) time between diagnosis and surgery, (4) time of diagnosis, (5) time of evaluation, (6) time points of tumor progression, (7) time-to-recurrence, (8) time of initial diagnosis, (9) time from randomization, (10) time of collection. Unlike the other searches, the relevant phrase in the Google Scholar search was time to discovery. With no included results, the phrases in PubMed are irrelevant for this review.
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 | 0,014 | 0,078 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,030 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,291 | 0,139 |
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 ».