MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509778969 · doi:10.5772/54065

Phytoestrogens and Colon Cancer

2013· book-chapter· en· W1509778969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara Pampaloni, Carmelo Mavilia, Elisa Bartolini, Francesco Tonelli, Maria Luisa Brandi, Federica DAst

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoestrogensColorectal cancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) represents the most frequent malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract in the Western world in both genders. There is a wide variation of incidence rate for both colonic and rectal cancer among the populations of different countries: up to a 30-40-fold difference is seen between North America (Canada, Los Angeles, San Francisco), New-Zealand (non–Maori), Northern Italy (Trieste), Northern France (Haut- and Bas-Rhin) in which the rate of CRC is around 50/100,000 inhabitants, and India (Madras, Bangalore, Trivadrum, Barshi, Paranda, Bhum, Karunagappally), Algeria (Setif), and Mali (Bamako) in which the rate is around 3/100,000 [1]. It is estimated that approximately 6% of the United States population will eventually develop a CRC, and that 6 million of American citizens who are living will die of CRC [2].\n\nThe geographic differences in CRC incidence are due more to environment, life-style, and diet than to racial or ethnic factors. Demonstration of this fact is that migrants from low to high incidence areas have the same incidence as the host country within one generation, having assimilate western lifestyle and diet.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.009

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207