MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1649084022 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.22.2.353

The Origin of Cancer Metastasis

2005· article· en· W1649084022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean Ferguson Carr, Ian Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetastasis and carcinoma case studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerCancerRadical mastectomyMetastasisMastectomyCancer metastasisGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little was known about cancer in 1829. Cancer was regarded as scirrhous, encephaloid and melanotic hard, soft and black. Deep-seated cancer was almost inevitably fatal, as was breast cancer. Surgical treatment of breast cancer was ineffective, and often fatal. Post-operative infection was very common. Radical mastectomy was 30 years in the future, and in the 1880s had a mortality rate of 25% in the hands of Billroth; even by 1900, the “safe” radical mastectomy of Halsted had a three-year cure rate of 57%. In 1829, a French surgeon, J. C. A. Récamier, (1774–1852) in his book on cancer, gave the first clear reference to metastasis — “métastase.”

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations380
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicMetastasis and carcinoma case studiesFrench-language works237,207