MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966938588 · doi:10.1136/jech.2006.047894

Perineal use of talc and risk of ovarian cancer: Figure 1

2008· review· en· W1966938588 on OpenAlexaff
Hilde Langseth, Susan E. Hankinson, Jack Siemiatycki, Elisabete Weiderpass

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre International de Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerEtiologyGynecologyBreast cancerDiseaseCancerAsbestosObstetricsOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common gynaecological neoplasms, especially in industrialised countries. The aetiology of the disease is not well understood, except that inherited mutations in the breast cancer genes BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 account for up to 10% of all cases, and child-bearing, oral contraceptive use and breast-feeding reduce the risk. Some environmental exposures, notably talc and asbestos, have been suspected as ovarian carcinogens.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology & Community HealthSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207