MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1802603760 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.815

Canadian consensus guidelines for the management of testicular germ cell cancer

2013· article· en· W1802603760 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lori Wood, Christian Kollmannsberger, Michael A.S. Jewett, Peter Chung, Sebastién J. Hotte, Martin O’Malley, Joan Sweet, Lynn Anson‐Cartwright, Eric Winquist, Scott North, Scott Tyldesley, Jeremy Sturgeon, Mary Gospodarowicz, Roanne Segal, Tina Cheng, Peter Venner, Malcolm J. Moore, Peter Albers, Robert Huddart, Craig R. Nichols, Padraig Warde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreMcGill University Health CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalBC Cancer AgencyQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerCanadian Urological Association
KeywordsTesticular cancerCancerMedicineDiseaseGerm cell tumorsGerm cellIncidence (geometry)SeminomaGeneral partnershipGynecologyPathologyInternal medicinePolitical scienceBiologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T esticular tumours are uncommon but constitute an important group of malignancies in young men. Worldwide, it is estimated that there were more than 48 500 new cases and 8900 deaths from the disease in 2002. 1 The vast majority are primary germ cell tumours (GCTs) and the incidence has doubled in the past 30 years (with most of the increase in seminomas). 2 While most patients present with early-stage and highly curable disease, the continued rise in the incidence of these tumours presents a major challenge.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations131
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207