MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508020986 · doi:10.1002/cncr.29021

Flawed assumptions used to defend screening mammography

2014· letter· en· W1508020986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Archie Bleyer, Charles R. Thomas, Cornelia J. Baines, Anthony B. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMammographyMammography screeningQuarter (Canadian coin)Screening mammographyIntensive care medicineMedical physicsBreast cancerCancerHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exaggerating the current benefit of screening mammography and minimizing its harms are readily accomplished by the application of assumptions based on data one‐quarter to half of a century old, and they are neither reliable for predicting what is happening today nor appropriate for the treatment advances that have happened since. Helvie and colleagues are culpable of this conduct.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0780.118
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207