MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492152799 · doi:10.1111/bju.12556

The <scp>M</scp> elbourne Consensus Statement on the early detection of prostate cancer

2013· review· en· W1492152799 on OpenAlexaff
Declan G. Murphy, Thomas E. Ahlering, William J. Catàlona, Helen Crowe, Jane Crowe, Noel W. Clarke, Matthew R. Cooperberg, David Gillatt, Martin Gleave, Stacy Loeb, Monique J. Roobol, Oliver Sartor, Tom Pickles, Addie Wootten, Patrick C. Walsh, Anthony J. Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYProstate cancerConfusionConsensus conferenceStatement (logic)MedicineMultidisciplinary approachCancerCancer detectionFamily medicineGynecologyPsychologyInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various conflicting guidelines and recommendations about prostate cancer screening and early detection have left both clinicians and their patients quite confused. At the Prostate Cancer World Congress held in Melbourne in August 2013, a multidisciplinary group of the world's leading experts in this area gathered together and generated this set of consensus statements to bring some clarity to this confusion. The five consensus statements provide clear guidance for clinicians counselling their patients about the early detection of prostate cancer.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207